UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the quarter endedMarch 31, 2004 |
Commission File Number | Name of Registrant, State of Incorporation, Address of Principal Executive Offices, and Telephone Number | I.R.S. EmployerIdentification Number |
001-31403 | PEPCO HOLDINGS, INC. (Pepco Holdings or PHI), a Delaware corporation 701 Ninth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20068 Telephone: (202)872-2000 | 52-2297449 |
001-01072 | POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (Pepco), a District of Columbia and Virginia corporation 701 Ninth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20068 Telephone: (202)872-2000 | 53-0127880 |
001-01405 | DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (DPL), a Delaware and Virginia corporation 800 King Street, P.O. Box 231 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 Telephone: (202)872-2000 | 51-0084283 |
001-03559 | ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY (ACE), a New Jersey corporation 800 King Street, P.O. Box 231 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 Telephone: (202)872-2000 | 21-0398280 |
333-59558 | ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC TRANSITION FUNDING LLC (ACE Funding), a Delaware limited liability company P.O. Box 15597 Wilmington, Delaware 19850 Telephone: (202)872-2000 | 51-0408521 |
Continued ________________________________________________________________________________ |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: |
Registrant | Title of Each Class | Name of Each Exchangeon Which Registered |
Pepco Holdings | Common Stock, $.01 par value | New York Stock Exchange |
DPL | Guarantee by DPL of the 8.125% Cumulative Trust Preferred Capital Securities of Delmarva Power Financing I | New York Stock Exchange |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: |
Pepco | Serial Preferred Stock, $50 par value | |
Indicate by check mark whether each of the registrants (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes X . No . |
Indicate by check mark whether Pepco Holdings is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes X . No . |
Pepco, DPL, ACE, and ACE Funding are not accelerated filers. |
DPL, ACE and ACE Funding meet the conditions set forth in General Instruction H(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-Q and are therefore filing this Form 10-Q with reduced disclosure format specified in General Instruction H(2) of Form 10-Q. |
Registrant | Number of Shares of Common Stock of theRegistrant Outstanding at March 31, 2004 |
Pepco Holdings | 172,171,604 ($.01 par value) |
Pepco | 100 ($.01 par value) (a) |
DPL | 1,000 ($2.25 par value) (b) |
ACE | 12,886,853 ($3 par value)(b) |
ACE Funding | None (c) |
| GLOSSARY OF TERMS |
Term | Definition |
ABO | Accumulated benefit obligation |
ACE | Atlantic City Electric Company |
ACE Funding | Atlantic City Electric Transition Funding LLC |
Ancillary services | Generally, electricity generation reserves and reliability services |
APCA | New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act |
Act | Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 |
APB | Accounting Principles Board Opinion |
APBO | Accumulated Post-retirement Benefit Obligation |
Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement | Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated as of June 7, 2000 and subsequently amended, between Pepco and Mirant (formerly Southern Energy, Inc.) relating to the sale of Pepco's generation assets |
Bankruptcy Court | Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas |
BGS | Basic generation service (the supply of energy to customers in New Jersey who have not chosen a competitive supplier) |
BTP | Bondable Transition Property |
CAA | Clean Air Act |
Competitive Energy Business | Consists of the business operations of Conectiv Energy and Pepco Energy Services |
Conectiv | A wholly owned subsidiary of PHI which is a PUHCA holding company and the parent of DPL and ACE |
Conectiv Energy | Conectiv Energy Holding Company and its subsidiaries |
Conectiv Power Delivery (CPD) | The tradename under which DPL and ACE conduct their power delivery operations |
CT | Combustion turbine |
DCPSC | District of Columbia Public Service Commission |
Debentures | Junior Subordinated Debentures |
Delivery revenue | Revenue Pepco receives for delivering energy to its customers |
District Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
DMEC | Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation |
DPL | Delmarva Power & Light Company |
DPSC | Delaware Public Service Commission |
EDECA | New Jersey Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act |
EITF | Emerging Issues Task Force |
EITF 03-11 | Emerging Issues Task Force 03-11 entitled "Reporting Realized Gains and Losses on Derivative Instruments that are Subject to FASB Statement No. 133, 'Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,' and not 'Held for Trading Purposes'" |
EPA | Environmental Protection Agency |
ERISA | Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 |
Exchange Act | Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended |
FASB | Financial Accounting Standards Board |
FERC | Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
FIN 45 | FASB Interpretation No. 45, entitled "Guarantor's Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others" |
FIN 46 | FASB Interpretation No. 46, entitled "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities" |
FIN 46R | FASB Interpretation No. 46 (revised December 2003), entitled "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities" |
FirstEnergy | FirstEnergy Corp., formerly Ohio Edison |
i _________________________________________________________________________________ |
Term | Definition |
FirstEnergy PPA | PPAs between Pepco and FirstEnergy Corp. and Allegheny Energy, Inc. |
FSP | FASB Staff Position |
FSP 106-1 | FASB Staff Position 106-1, entitled "Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003" |
GAAP | Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America |
GCR | Gas Cost Recovery |
GPC | Generation Procurement Credit |
LTIP | Long-Term Incentive Plan |
Mirant | Mirant Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries |
Mirant Pre-Petition Obligations | Unpaid obligations of Mirant to Pepco existing at the time of filing of Mirant's bankruptcy petition consisting primarily of payments due Pepco in respect of the PPA-Related Obligations |
MPSC | Maryland Public Service Commission |
NERC | North American Electric Reliability Counsel |
NJBPU | New Jersey Board of Public Utilities |
NJBPU Financing Orders | Bondable stranded costs rate orders issued by the NJBPU |
NJDEP | New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection |
NOx | Nitrogen oxide emissions |
OCI | Other Comprehensive Income |
OPC | Maryland Office of the People's Counsel |
Panda | Panda-Brandywine, L.P. |
Panda PPA | PPA between Pepco and Panda |
PCI | Potomac Capital Investment Corporation and its subsidiaries |
Pepco | Potomac Electric Power Company |
Pepco Energy Services | Pepco Energy Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries |
Pepco Holdings or PHI | Pepco Holdings, Inc. |
Pepco TPA Claim | Pepco's $105 million allowed, pre-petition general unsecured claim against Mirant |
Pepcom | Pepco Communications, Inc. |
PJM | PJM Interconnection, LLC |
PPA | Power Purchase Agreement |
PPA-Related Obligations | Mirant's obligations to purchase from Pepco the capacity and energy that Pepco is obligated to purchase under the FirstEnergy PPA and the Panda PPA |
PSD | Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions of the CAA |
PUHCA | Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 |
RARC | Regulatory Asset Recovery Charge |
RCN | RCN Corporation |
Recoverable stranded costs | The portion of stranded costs that is recoverable from ratepayers as approved by regulatory authorities |
Regulated electric revenues | Revenues for delivery (transmission and distribution) service and electricity supply service |
SEC | Securities and Exchange Commission |
Settlement Agreement | Amended Settlement Agreement and Release, dated as of October 24, 2003 between Pepco and the Mirant Parties |
SFAS | Statement of Financial Accounting Standards |
SFAS No. 106 | Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 106, entitled "Employers Accounting for Post-retirement Benefits Other than Pensions" |
ii _________________________________________________________________________________ |
Term | Definition |
SFAS No. 123 | Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, entitled "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation" |
SFAS No. 131 | Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 131, entitled "Disclosures About Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information" |
SFAS No. 132 | Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 132, entitled "Employers Disclosures about Pensions and Other Post-retirement Benefits" |
SFAS No. 133 | Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133, entitled "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities" |
SFAS No. 148 | Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 148 entitled "Accounting For Stock-Based Compensation - Transition and Disclosure" |
SFAS No. 150 | Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 150, entitled "Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity" |
SMECO | Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc. |
SMECO Agreement | Capacity purchase agreement between Pepco and SMECO |
SO2 | Sulfur dioxide emissions |
SOS | Standard Offer Service (the supply of energy to customers in Maryland and the District of Columbia who have not chosen a competitive supplier) |
Standard Offer Service revenue or SOS revenue | Revenue Pepco receives for the procurement of energy by Pepco for its SOS customers |
Starpower | Starpower Communications, LLC |
Stranded costs | Costs incurred by a utility in connection with providing service which would otherwise be unrecoverable in a competitive or restructured market. Such costs may include costs for generation assets, purchased power costs, and regulatory assets and liabilities, such as accumulated deferred income taxes. |
TBC | Transition bond charge |
TPAs | Transition Power Agreements for Maryland and the District of Columbia between Pepco and Mirant |
Transition Bonds | Transition bonds issued by ACE Funding |
Treasury lock | A hedging transaction that allows a company to "lock-in" a specific interest rate corresponding to the rate of a designated Treasury bond for a determined period of time |
VaR | Value at Risk |
VSCC | Virginia State Corporation Commission |
iii _________________________________________________________________________________ |
PEPCO HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (Unaudited) |
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY | March 31, 2004 | December 31, 2003 |
| (Millions of Dollars) |
| | |
CURRENT LIABILITIES | | |
Short-term debt | $ 1,044.7 | $ 898.3 |
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities | 602.4 | 699.6 |
Debentures issued to financing trust | 72.2 | 25.8 |
Capital lease obligations due within one year | 15.8 | 15.8 |
Interest and taxes accrued | 79.5 | 96.8 |
Other | 361.6 | 354.1 |
Total Current Liabilities | 2,176.2 | 2,090.4 |
| | |
DEFERRED CREDITS | | |
Regulatory liabilities | 459.7 | 479.9 |
Income taxes | 1,831.9 | 1,777.0 |
Investment tax credits | 62.3 | 63.7 |
Other post-retirement benefit obligation | 285.6 | 276.9 |
Other | 298.6 | 259.1 |
Total Deferred Credits | 2,938.1 | 2,856.6 |
| | |
LONG-TERM LIABILITIES | | |
Long-term debt | 4,641.3 | 4,588.9 |
Transition Bonds issued by ACE Funding | 544.2 | 551.3 |
Debentures issued to financing trust | - | 72.2 |
Mandatorily redeemable serial preferred stock | 45.0 | 45.0 |
Capital lease obligations | 114.4 | 115.4 |
Total Long-Term Liabilities | 5,344.9 | 5,372.8 |
| | |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | | |
| | |
PREFERRED STOCK OF SUBSIDIARIES | | |
Serial preferred stock | 35.3 | 35.3 |
Redeemable serial preferred stock | 27.9 | 27.9 |
Total preferred stock | 63.2 | 63.2 |
| | |
SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY | | |
Common stock, $.01 par value, - authorized 400,000,000 shares and 200,000,000 shares, respectively - issued 172,171,604 shares and 171,769,448 shares, respectively | 1.7 | 1.7 |
Premium on stock and other capital contributions | 2,254.0 | 2,246.6 |
Capital stock expense | (3.3) | (3.3) |
Accumulated other comprehensive loss | (14.3) | (22.7) |
Retained income | 789.3 | 781.0 |
Total Shareholders' Equity | 3,027.4 | 3,003.3 |
| | |
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY | $13,549.8 | $13,386.3 |
| | |
The accompanying Notes are an integral part of these Consolidated Financial Statements |
PEPCO HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Unaudited) |
| Three Months Ended March 31, |
| 2004 | 2003 |
| (Millions of Dollars) |
| | |
OPERATING ACTIVITIES | | |
Net income (loss) | $ 51.2 | $ (24.9) |
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities: | | |
Gain on sale of assets | (12.1) | - |
Net (gain) loss on derivative contracts | (1.9) | 66.5 |
Depreciation and amortization | 112.8 | 104.0 |
Impairment loss | - | 52.8 |
Rents received from leveraged leases under income earned | (21.3) | (16.1) |
Deferred income taxes | (3.9) | (5.1) |
Investment tax credit adjustments, net | (1.3) | (1.3) |
Changes in: | | |
Accounts receivable | 48.0 | (42.3) |
Regulatory assets and liabilities | 12.6 | (22.1) |
Other deferred charges | 2.7 | 1.7 |
Prepaid expenses | 24.9 | (32.2) |
Prepaid pension costs | 7.7 | 3.1 |
Fuel, materials and supplies | 28.9 | 30.4 |
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities | (72.4) | (80.9) |
Interest and taxes accrued | (37.8) | 12.6 |
Net Cash from Operating Activities | 138.1 | 46.2 |
| | |
INVESTING ACTIVITIES | | |
Net investment in property, plant and equipment | (94.3) | (149.1) |
Proceeds from sale of assets | 28.5 | - |
Proceeds from sales of marketable securities | 11.5 | 106.0 |
Purchases of marketable securities | (8.8) | (97.8) |
Proceeds from sales of other investments | - | 11.5 |
Purchases of other investments | (0.2) | (1.3) |
Changes in restricted cash | 0.3 | 2.0 |
Net other investing activities | 1.1 | 3.3 |
Net Cash Used By Investing Activities | (61.9) | (125.4) |
| | |
FINANCING ACTIVITIES | | |
Dividends paid on preferred and common stock | (43.6) | (44.3) |
Common stock issued for the Dividend Reinvestment Plan | 7.4 | 6.6 |
Redemption of debentures issued to financing trust | (25.0) | - |
Redemption of Trust Preferred Stock | - | (70.0) |
Issuances of long-term debt | 275.0 | 300.0 |
Reacquisition of long-term debt | (43.4) | (112.5) |
(Repayment) Issuances of short-term debt, net | (39.4) | 15.5 |
Cost of issuances and financings | (3.4) | (3.1) |
Net other financing activities | (1.2) | (1.1) |
Net Cash from Financing Activities | 126.4 | 91.1 |
| | |
Net Increase in Cash and Cash Equivalents | 202.6 | 11.9 |
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period | 100.3 | 82.5 |
| | |
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AT END OF PERIOD | $302.9 | $ 94.4 |
| | |
| | |
The accompanying Notes are an integral part of these Consolidated Financial Statements. |
PHI is a public utility holding company registered under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA)and is subject to the regulatory oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under PUHCA. As a registered public utility holding company, PHI requires SEC approval to, among other things, issue securities, acquire or dispose of utility assets or securities of utility companies and acquire other businesses. In addition, under PUHCA, transactions among PHI and its subsidiaries generally must be performed at cost and subsidiaries are prohibited from paying dividends out of an accumulated deficit or paid-in capital without SEC approval. |
PHI was incorporated in Delaware on February 9, 2001, for the purpose of effecting the acquisition of Conectiv by Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco). The acquisition was completed on August 1, 2002, at which time Pepco and Conectiv became wholly owned subsidiaries of PHI. Conectiv was formed in 1998 to be the holding company for Delmarva Power & Light Company (DPL) and Atlantic City Electric Company (ACE) in connection with a merger between DPL and ACE. As a result, DPL and ACE are wholly owned subsidiaries of Conectiv. Conectiv also is a registered public utility holding company under PUHCA. |
PHI Service Company, a subsidiary service company of PHI, provides a variety of support services, including legal, treasury, accounting, tax, purchasing and information technology services to Pepco Holdings and its operating subsidiaries. These services are provided pursuant to a service agreement among PHI, PHI Service Company, and the participating operating subsidiaries that has been filed with, and approved by, the SEC under PUHCA. The expenses of the service company are charged to PHI and the participating operating subsidiaries in accordance with costing methodologies set forth in the service agreement. |
The following is a description of each of PHI's areas of operation. |
Power Delivery |
The largest component of PHI's business is power delivery, which consists of the transmission and distribution of electricity and the distribution of natural gas. PHI's power delivery business is conducted by its subsidiaries Pepco, DPL and ACE, each of which is a regulated public utility in the jurisdictions in which it serves customers. DPL and ACE conduct their power delivery operations under the trade name Conectiv Power Delivery. |
8 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
Competitive Energy |
PHI's competitive energy business provides non-regulated generation, marketing and supply of electricity and gas, and related energy management services, in the mid-Atlantic region. PHI's competitive energy operations are conducted through subsidiaries of Conectiv Energy Holding Company (collectively, Conectiv Energy) and Pepco Energy Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, Pepco Energy Services). |
Other Non-Regulated |
This component of PHI's business is conducted through its subsidiaries Potomac Capital Investment Corporation (PCI) and Pepco Communications, Inc. (Pepcom). PCI manages a portfolio of financial investments, which primarily includes energy leveraged leases. During the second quarter of 2003, PHI announced the discontinuation of further new investment activity by PCI. Pepcom through a subsidiary currently owns a 50% interest in Starpower Communications, LLC (Starpower), a joint venture with RCN Corporation (RCN), which provides cable and telecommunication services to households in the Washington, D.C. area. As part of PHI's strategy of focusing on energy-related investments, PHI in January 2004 announced that Pepcom intends to sell its interest in Starpower. PHI cannot predict whether Pepcom's efforts to sell its interest in Starpower will be successful or, if successful, when a sale would be completed or what the sale proceeds would be. As of December 31, 2003, PHI determined that its investment in Starpower was impaired and therefore recorded a non-cash charge of $102.6 million during the fourth quarter of 2003. |
(2) ACCOUNTING POLICY AND PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCLOSURES |
Financial Statement Presentation |
Pepco Holdings' unaudited consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP have been omitted. Therefore, these financial statements should be read along with the annual financial statements included in PHI's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003. In the opinion of PHI's management, the consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments (which all are of a normal recurring nature) necessary to present fairly Pepco Holdings' financial condition as of March 31, 2004, in accordance with GAAP. Interim results for the three months ended March 31, 2004 may not be indicative of results that will be realized for the full year ending De cember 31, 2004. Additionally, certain prior period balances have been reclassified in order to conform to current period presentation. |
FIN 45 |
Pepco Holdings applied the provisions of FASB Interpretation No. 45, "Guarantor's Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others" (FIN 45), commencing in 2003 to its agreements that contain guarantee and indemnification clauses. These provisions expand those required by FASB Statement No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies," by requiring a guarantor to recognize a liability on its balance sheet for the fair value of obligations it assumes under certain guarantees issued or modified after December 31, 2002 and to disclose certain |
9 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
types of guarantees, even if the likelihood of requiring the guarantor's performance under the guarantee is remote. |
As of March 31, 2004, Pepco Holdings did not have material obligations under guarantees or indemnifications issued or modified after December 31, 2002, which are required to be recognized as a liability on its consolidated balance sheets, however, certain energy marketing obligations of Conectiv Energy were recorded. |
FIN 46 |
On December 31, 2003, FIN 46 was implemented by Pepco Holdings. FIN 46 was revised and superseded by FASB Interpretation No. 46 (revised December 2003), "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities" (FIN 46R) which clarified some of the provisions of FIN 46 and exempted certain entities from its requirements. FIN 46R is applicable to Pepco Holdings' financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2004. The implementation of FIN 46R (including the evaluation of interests in purchase power arrangements) did not impact Pepco Holdings' financial condition or results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2004. |
As part of the FIN 46R evaluation, Pepco Holdings reviewed its subsidiaries' power purchase agreements (PPAs), including its Non-Utility Generation (NUG) contracts, to determine (i) if the subsidiary's interest in each entity that is a counterparty to a PPA agreement was a variable interest, (ii) whether the entity was a variable interest entity and (iii) if so, whether Pepco Holdings' subsidiary was the primary beneficiary. Due to a variable element in the pricing structure of PPAs with four entities, including Pepco's agreement with Panda-Brandywine, L.P. (Panda), Pepco Holdings' subsidiaries potentially assume the variability in the operations of the plants of these entities and therefore have a variable interest in the entities. However, due to Pepco Holdings' inability to obtain information from certain of these entities considered to be confidential and proprietary by the entities or the certain entities' own determination that they qua lified for exemption as a business, Pepco Holdings was unable to obtain sufficient information to conduct the analysis required under FIN 46R to determine whether these four entities were variable interest entities or if Pepco Holdings' subsidiaries were the primary beneficiary. As a result, Pepco Holdings has applied the scope exemption from the application of FIN 46R for enterprises that have conducted exhaustive efforts to obtain the necessary information. |
Power purchases related to the PPAs with these four entities in the quarters ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 were approximately $77 million and $79 million, respectively. Power purchases related to the PPAs in the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001 were approximately $302 million, $295 million and $302 million, respectively. Pepco Holdings' exposure to loss under the Panda PPA is discussed in Note (4) Commitments And Contingencies, under "Relationship with Mirant Corporation." Pepco Holdings does not have loss exposure under the remaining three PPAs since cost recovery will be achieved from its customers through regulated rates. |
EITF 03-11 |
On January 1, 2004, Pepco Holdings implemented EITF Issue No. 03-11 (EITF 03-11), "Reporting Realized Gains and Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject to FASB Statement No. 133, 'Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,' and not 'Held for Trading Purposes' as Defined in EITF Issue No. 02-3" "Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative |
10 ______________________________________________________________________________ |
Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities." As a result of the implementation of this EITF, $37.4 million of operating revenues and operating expenses related to certain of Conectiv Energy's energy contracts are reported on a net basis in the accompanying consolidated statements of earnings for the three months ended March 31, 2004, as these energy contracts did not physically settle. Had EITF 03-11 been effective for the first quarter of 2003, Pepco Holdings' operating revenues and operating expenses would have been reduced by $37.1 million. The implementation of EITF 03-11, including the associated reclassification of certain operating revenues and operating expenses, did not have an impact on Pepco Holdings' financial condition or earnings. |
Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost |
The following Pepco Holdings information is for the three months ended March 31, |
The actual components of net periodic benefit cost for the 2003 interim period are not available. The component amounts presented above for the 2003 interim period were calculated in proportion to the annual amounts presented in Pepco Holdings' financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2003. These component amounts are presented for comparison purposes only. |
Pension |
The 2004 pension net periodic benefit cost of $8.4 million includes $3.6 million for Pepco, $2.1 million for ACE, and $(.5) million for DPL. The remaining pension net periodic benefit cost is for other PHI subsidiaries. The 2003 pension net periodic benefit cost of $8.7 million includes $5.2 million for Pepco, $3.2 million for ACE, and $(1.4) million for DPL. The remaining pension net periodic benefit cost is for other PHI subsidiaries. |
Pension Contributions |
Pepco Holdings funding policy with regard to the pension plan is to maintain a funding level in excess of 100% of its accumulated benefit obligation (ABO). PHI's defined benefit plan currently meets the minimum funding requirements of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) without any additional funding. In 2003 and 2002 PHI made discretionary tax-deductible cash contributions to the plan of $50 million and $35 million, respectively. Assuming no changes to the current pension plan assumptions, PHI projects no funding will be required in 2004; however PHI may elect to make a discretionary tax-deductible contribution, if required to maintain its assets in excess of its ABO. As of March 31, 2004, no contributions have been made. |
11 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
Other Post-Retirement Benefits |
The 2004 Other Post-Retirement net periodic benefit cost of $11.0 million includes $4.5 million for Pepco, $2.5 million for ACE, and $2.3 million for DPL. The remaining Other Post-Retirement net periodic benefit cost is for other PHI subsidiaries. The 2003 Other Post-Retirement net periodic benefit cost of $10.1 million includes $4.2 million for Pepco, $2.6 million for ACE, and $1.7 million for DPL. The remaining Other Post-Retirement net periodic benefit cost is for other PHI subsidiaries. |
FASB Staff Position (FSP 106-1), Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (the Act) |
The Act became effective on December 8, 2003. The Act introduces a prescription drug benefit under Medicare (Medicare Part D) as well as a federal subsidy to sponsors of retiree health care benefit plans that provide a benefit that is at least actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D. |
SFAS No. 106 "Employers Accounting for Post-retirement Benefits Other than Pensions" requires presently enacted changes in relevant laws to be considered in current period measurements of post-retirement benefit costs and the Accumulated Post-Retirement Benefit Obligation (APBO). Therefore, under that guidance, measures of the APBO and net periodic post-retirement benefit costs on or after the date of enactment should reflect the effects of the Act. |
However, due to certain accounting issues raised by the Act that are not explicitly addressed by SFAS No. 106 and uncertainties that may exist as to reliable information available on which to measure the effects of the Act, the FSP 106-1 allows a plan sponsor to elect to defer recognizing the effects of the Act in the accounting for its plan under SFAS No. 106 and in providing disclosures related to the plan required by SFAS No. 132 (revised 2003), "Employers' Disclosures about Pensions and Other Post-retirement Benefits," until authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy is issued, or until certain other events occur. |
Pepco Holdings sponsors post-retirement health care plans that provide prescription drug benefits. Pepco Holdings did not elect the deferral provided by the FSP 106-1. The APBO as of December 31, 2003 was reduced by $28 million to reflect the effects of the Act. For the current quarter and all of 2003, Pepco Holdings' net periodic postretirement benefit expense has not been reduced to reflect the Act. It is estimated that the annual postretirement benefit cost will be reduced by approximately $4 million due to effects of the Act. This reduction includes both the decrease in the cost of future benefits being earned and an amortization of the APBO reduction over the future average working lifetime of the participants, or 13.5 years.The anticipated claims costs expected to be incurred have been adjusted to reflect the cost sharing between Medicare and Pepco Holdings. Participation rates have not been changed. In reflecting the effects of the Act, Pepco Holdings has determined which plans are eligible for Medicare cost sharing by analyzing the terms of each of its plans. It has recognized Medicare cost sharing for a plan only if Pepco Holdings' projected prescription drug coverage is expected to be at least as generous as the expected contribution by Medicare to a prescription drug plan not provided by Pepco Holdings. |
Specific authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy under the Act is pending and that guidance, when issued, could require Pepco Holdings to change previously reported information. When |
12 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
issued, the guidance on accounting for the federal subsidy will include transition guidance, as applicable, for entities that elected to defer accounting for the effects of the Act and those that did not. |
The effect of the subsidy on the current period Other Post-Retirement net periodic benefit cost of $11.0 million would be approximately a $1 million reduction due to the subsidy. Approximately $.5 million would be related to the amortization of the actuarial gain, $.1 million would be a subsidy-related reduction in current period service cost and approximately $.4 million would be a subsidy-related reduction in interest cost on the APBO. |
Severance Costs |
During 2002, Pepco Holdings' management approved initiatives by Pepco and Conectiv to streamline their operating structures by reducing the number of employees at each company. These initiatives met the criteria for the accounting treatment provided under EITF No. 94-3 "Liability Recognition for Certain Employee Termination Benefits and Other Costs to Exit an Activity (including Certain Costs Incurred in a Restructuring)." A roll forward of the severance accrual balance is as follows. (Amounts in millions) |
(4) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
Relationship with Mirant Corporation |
In 2000, Pepco sold substantially all of its electricity generation assets to Mirant Corporation, formerly Southern Energy, Inc. As part of the sale, Pepco entered into several ongoing contractual arrangements with Mirant and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, Mirant). On July 14, 2003, Mirant Corporation and most of its subsidiaries filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas (the Bankruptcy Court). Under bankruptcy law, a debtor generally may, with authorization from a bankruptcy court, assume or reject executory contracts. A rejection of an executory contract entitles the counterparty to file a claim as an unsecured creditor against the bankruptcy estate for damages incurred due to the rejection of the contract. In a bankruptcy proceeding, a debtor can normally restructure some or all of its pre-petition liabilities. |
Depending on the outcome of the matters discussed below, the Mirant bankruptcy could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations of Pepco Holdings and Pepco. However, management currently believes that Pepco Holdings and Pepco currently have sufficient cash, cash flow and borrowing capacity under their credit facilities and in the capital markets to be able to satisfy the additional cash requirements that are expected to arise due to the Mirant bankruptcy. Accordingly, management does not anticipate that the Mirant bankruptcy will impair the ability of Pepco Holdings or Pepco to fulfill their contractual obligations or to fund projected capital expenditures. On this basis, management currently does not believe that the Mirant bankruptcy will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of either company. |
Transition Power Agreements |
As part of the asset purchase and sale agreement for the Pepco generation assets (the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement), Pepco and Mirant entered into Transition Power Agreements for Maryland and the District of Columbia, respectively (collectively, the TPAs). Under these agreements, Mirant was obligated to supply Pepco with all of the capacity and energy needed to fulfill its standard offer service obligations in Maryland through June 2004 and its standard offer service obligations in the District of Columbia into January 2005. |
To avoid the potential rejection of the TPAs, Pepco and Mirant entered into an Amended Settlement Agreement and Release dated as of October 24, 2003 (the Settlement Agreement) pursuant to which Mirant has assumed both of the TPAs and the terms of the TPAs were modified. The Settlement Agreement also provides that Pepco has an allowed, pre-petition general unsecured claim against Mirant in the amount of $105 million (the Pepco TPA Claim). |
The amount, if any, that Pepco will be able to recover from the Mirant bankruptcy estate in respect of the Pepco TPA Claim will depend on the amount of assets available for distribution to creditors. At the current stage of the bankruptcy proceeding, there is insufficient information to determine the amount, if any, that Pepco might be able to recover from the Mirant bankruptcy estate. |
16 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
Power Purchase Agreements |
Under agreements with FirstEnergy Corp., formerly Ohio Edison (FirstEnergy), and Allegheny Energy, Inc., both entered into in 1987, Pepco is obligated to purchase from FirstEnergy 450 megawatts of capacity and energy annually through December 2005 (the FirstEnergy PPA). Under an agreement with Panda-Brandywine L.P. (Panda), entered into in 1991, Pepco is obligated to purchase from Panda 230 megawatts of capacity and energy annually through 2021 (the Panda PPA). In each case, the purchase price is substantially in excess of current market prices. As a part of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement, Pepco entered into a "back-to-back" arrangement with Mirant. Under this arrangement, Mirant is obligated, among other things, to purchase from Pepco the capacity and energy that Pepco is obligated to purchase under the FirstEnergy PPA and the Panda PPA at a price equal to the price Pepco is obligated to pay under the PPAs (the PPA-Related Obligations). |
Pepco Pre-Petition Claims |
When Mirant filed its bankruptcy petition on July 14, 2003, Mirant had unpaid obligations to Pepco of approximately $29 million, consisting primarily of payments due to Pepco in respect of the PPA-Related Obligations (the Mirant Pre-Petition Obligations). The Mirant Pre-Petition Obligations constitute part of the indebtedness for which Mirant is seeking relief in its bankruptcy proceeding. Pepco has filed Proofs of Claim in the Mirant bankruptcy proceeding in the amount of approximately $26 million to recover this indebtedness; however, the amount of Pepco's recovery, if any, is uncertain. The $3 million difference between Mirant's unpaid obligation to Pepco and the $26 million Proofs of Claim filed by Pepco primarily represents a TPA settlement adjustment which is included in the $105 million Proofs of Claim filed by Pepco against the Mirant debtors in respect of the Pepco TPA Claim. In view of this uncertainty, Pepco, in the third quarter of 2003, expensed $14.5 million to establish a reserve against the $29 million receivable from Mirant. In January 2004, Pepco paid approximately $2.5 million to Panda in settlement of certain billing disputes under the Panda PPA that related to periods after the sale of Pepco's generation assets to Mirant. Pepco believes that under the terms of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement, Mirant is obligated to reimburse Pepco for the settlement payment. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2004 Pepco increased the amount of the receivable due from Mirant by approximately $2.5 million, and Pepco intends to file Proofs of Claim for this amount against Mirant. Pepco currently estimates that the $14.5 million expensed in the third quarter of 2003 represents the portion of the entire $31.5 million receivable unlikely to be recovered in bankruptcy, and no additional reserve has been established for the $2.5 million increase in the receivable. The amount expensed represents Pepco's estimate of the possible outcome in bankruptcy, although the amount ultimately recoverable could be higher or lower. |
Mirant's Attempt to Reject the PPA-Related Obligations |
On August 28, 2003, Mirant filed with the Bankruptcy Court a motion seeking authorization to reject its PPA-Related Obligations. |
Upon motions filed by Pepco and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), on October 9, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the District Court) withdrew jurisdiction over the rejection proceedings from the Bankruptcy Court. On December 23, 2003, the District Court denied Mirant's motion to reject the PPA-Related Obligations. The District Court's decision is being appealed by Mirant and The Official |
17 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Mirant Corporation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 5, 2004. |
Pepco is exercising all available legal remedies and vigorously opposing Mirant's continued attempts to reject the PPA-Related Obligations in order to protect the interests of its customers and shareholders. While Pepco believes that it has substantial legal bases to oppose the attempt to reject the agreements, the outcome of Mirant's efforts to reject the PPA-Related Obligations is uncertain. |
In accordance with the Bankruptcy Court's order, Mirant is continuing to perform the PPA-Related Obligations pending the resolution of the ongoing proceedings. However, if Mirant ultimately is successful in rejecting, and is otherwise permitted to stop performing the PPA-Related Obligations, Pepco could be required to repay to Mirant, for the period beginning on the effective date of the rejection (which date could be prior to the date of the court's order and possibly as early as September 18, 2003) and ending on the date Mirant is entitled to cease its purchases of energy and capacity from Pepco, all amounts paid by Mirant to Pepco in respect of the PPA-Related Obligations, less an amount equal to the price at which Mirant resold the purchased energy and capacity. Pepco estimates that the amount it could be required to repay to Mirant in the unlikely event September 18, 2003, is determined to be the effective date of rejection, is approx imately $69.2 million as of May 1, 2004. This repayment would entitle Pepco to file a claim against the bankruptcy estate in an amount equal to the amount repaid. Mirant has also asked the Bankruptcy Court to require Pepco to disgorge all amounts paid by Mirant to Pepco in respect of the PPA-Related Obligations, less an amount equal to the price at which Mirant resold the purchased energy and capacity, for the period July 14, 2003 (the date on which Mirant filed its bankruptcy petition) to September 18, 2003, on the theory that Mirant did not receive value for those payments. Pepco estimates that the amount it would be required to repay to Mirant on the disgorgement theory is approximately $22.5 million. Pepco believes a claim based on this theory should be entitled to administrative expense status for which complete recovery could be expected. If Pepco were required to repay any such amounts for either period, the payment would be expensed at the time the payment is made. |
The following are estimates prepared by Pepco of its potential future exposure if Mirant's motion to reject its PPA-Related Obligations ultimately is successful. These estimates are based in part on current market prices and forward price estimates for energy and capacity, and do not include financing costs, all of which could be subject to significant fluctuation. The estimates assume no recovery from the Mirant bankruptcy estate and no regulatory recovery, either of which would mitigate the effect of the estimated loss. Pepco does not consider it realistic to assume that there will be no such recoveries. Based on these assumptions, Pepco estimates that its pre-tax exposure as of May 1, 2004, representing the loss of the future benefit of the PPA-Related Obligations to Pepco, is as follows: |
The ability of Pepco to recover from the Mirant bankruptcy estate in respect of the Mirant Pre-Petition Obligations and damages if the PPA-Related Obligations are successfully rejected will depend on whether Pepco's claims are allowed, the amount of assets available for distribution to creditors and Pepco's priority relative to other creditors. At the current stage of the bankruptcy proceeding, there is insufficient information to determine the amount, if any, that Pepco might be able to recover from the Mirant bankruptcy estate, whether the recovery would be in cash or another form of payment, or the timing of any recovery. |
If Mirant ultimately is successful in rejecting the PPA-Related Obligations and Pepco's full claim is not recovered from the Mirant bankruptcy estate, Pepco may seek authority from the Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC) and the District of Columbia Public Service Commission (DCPSC) to recover its additional costs. Pepco is committed to working with its regulatory authorities to achieve a result that is appropriate for its shareholders and customers. Under the provisions of the settlement agreements approved by the MPSC and the DCPSC in the deregulation proceedings in which Pepco agreed to divest its generation assets under certain conditions, the PPAs were to become assets of Pepco's distribution business if they could not be sold. Pepco believes that, if Mirant ultimately is successful in rejecting the PPA-Related Obligations, these provisions would allow the stranded costs of the PPAs that are not recovered from the Mirant bankruptcy estate to be recovered through Pepco's distribution rates. If Pepco's interpretation of the settlement agreements is confirmed, Pepco expects to be able to establish the amount of its anticipated recovery as a regulatory asset. However, there is no assurance that Pepco's interpretation of the settlement agreements would be confirmed by the respective public service commissions. |
If the PPA-Related Obligations are successfully rejected, and there is no regulatory recovery, Pepco will incur a loss. However, the accounting treatment of such a loss depends on a number of legal and regulatory factors, and is not determinable at this time. |
The SMECO Agreement |
As a term of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement, Pepco assigned to Mirant a facility and capacity agreement with Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SMECO) under which Pepco was obligated to purchase the capacity of an 84-megawatt combustion turbine installed and owned by SMECO at a former Pepco generating station (the SMECO Agreement). The SMECO Agreement expires in 2015 and contemplates a monthly payment to SMECO of approximately $.5 million. Pepco is responsible to SMECO for the performance of the SMECO Agreement if Mirant fails to perform its obligations thereunder. At this time, Mirant continues to make post-petition payments due to SMECO. |
19 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
However, on March 15, 2004, Mirant filed a complaint with the Bankruptcy Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the facility and capacity credit agreement is an unexpired lease of non-residential real property rather than an executory contract and that if Mirant were to successfully reject the agreement, any claim against the bankruptcy estate for damages made by SMECO (or by Pepco as subrogee) would be subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that limit the recovery of rejection damages by lessors. Pepco believes that there is no reasonable factual or legal basis to support Mirant's contention that the SMECO Agreement is a lease of real property and has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the outcome of this proceeding cannot be predicted. |
Proposed Federal Tax Legislation Affecting Cross-border=0Leases |
The assets of PCI include a cross-border=0energy lease portfolio with a book value of approximately $1.2 billion at March 31, 2004. Currently, there is pending legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives (HR3967), that would apply new passive loss limitation rules prospectively to any new leases (including cross-border=0leases) entered into on or after February 11, 2004 with tax indifferent parties (i.e., municipalities, tax exempt or governmental entities). Cross-border=0leases are leases by a U.S. taxpayer of property located in a foreign country. All of PCI's cross-border=0leases are with tax indifferent parties but were entered into prior to 2004. Legislation is also pending in the Senate (S1637) that may jeopardize the tax benefits received by leaseholders, including PCI, from existing cross-border=0leases. The legislation, if adopted as proposed, would enact new passive loss limitation rules that would be applied retroactive ly to all existing lease agreements, for taxable years beginning after May 31, 2004, for all cross-border=0leaseholders, including PCI. The outcome of these legislative proposals is unknown at this time. However, if the Senate's version were to be adopted in its current form, the amount of income tax benefits that PHI would receive in connection with PCI's cross-border=0leases could decrease materially. If this occurred, PHI may be required to write down the book value of PCI's portfolio of cross-border=0leases by taking a charge against earnings. Any of these circumstances could have a material adverse effect on PHI's financial condition and results of operations. |
Preliminary Settlement Agreement with NJDEP |
On April 26, 2004, PHI, Conectiv and ACE entered into a preliminary settlement agreement with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the Attorney General of New Jersey that addresses various environmental issues at ACE and Conectiv Energy facilities in New Jersey. Among other things, the preliminary settlement agreement provides that: |
The preliminary settlement agreement also provides that the parties will work toward a consent order or other final settlement document that reflects the terms of the preliminary settlement agreement. |
Pursuant to a NJBPU order issued on September 25, 2003, ACE on April 30, 2004, filed a report with the NJBPU recommending that the B.L. England facility be shut down in accordance with the terms of the preliminary settlement agreement. The report stated that the operation of the B.L. England facility is necessary at the present time to satisfy reliability standards, but that those reliability standards could also be satisfied in other ways. The report concludes that, based on B.L. England's current and projected operating costs resulting from compliance with more restrictive environmental requirements, the most cost-effective way in which to meet reliability standards is to shut down the B.L. England facility and construct additional transmission lines into southern New Jersey. ACE cannot predict |
21 ______________________________________________________________________________ |
whether the NJBPU will approve the construction of the additional transmission lines. |
Rate Proceedings |
On February 3, 2003, ACE filed a petition with the NJBPU to increase its electric distribution rates and its Regulatory Asset Recovery Charge (RARC) in New Jersey. In its most recent submission, made on February 20, 2004, ACE proposed an overall rate increase of approximately $35.1 million, consisting of a $30.6 million increase in distribution rates and a $4.5 million increase in RARC. Hearings were held before an Administrative Law Judge in late March and early April 2004. At the hearing held on April 6, 2004, the Ratepayer Advocate proposed an annual rate decrease of $4.5 million, modifying its earlier proposal that rates be decreased by $11.7 million annually. The Staff of the NJBPU is expected to submit its recommendations in briefs to be filed in June. ACE cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. |
In December 2003, the Delaware Public Service Commission (DPSC) approved a settlement agreement that provided for an annual increase of $7.75 million in DPL's gas base rate. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, on February 13, 2004, DPL filed for an Environmental Surcharge of approximately $522,000 amortized over five years to recover out-of-pocket costs associated with gas environmental issues. The DPSC approved this surcharge on April 20, 2004. The surcharge will be adjusted year-to-year to reflect DPL's actual costs. |
DPL filed on February 13, 2004 for a change in electric ancillary service rates that has an aggregate effect of increasing annual revenues by $13.1 million or 2.4%. This filing was prompted by the increasing ancillary service costs charged to DPL by PJM. On February 24, 2004, the DPSC accepted the filing and placed the increase into effect on March 15, 2004, subject to refund. Intervention by another party has been filed. Unless the proceeding is settled, evidentiary hearings will be held in late August with a decision expected before the end of 2004. |
On August 29, 2003, DPL submitted its annual Gas Cost Recovery (GCR) rate filing to the DPSC. In its filing, DPL sought to increase its GCR rate by approximately 15.8% in anticipation of increasing natural gas commodity costs. The GCR rate, which permits DPL to recover its procurement gas costs through customer rates, became effective November 1, 2003 and was subject to refund pending evidentiary hearings that were held on April 19, 2004. No party has proposed to modify DPL's proposed GCR rate, thus no refund is required. However, DPSC Staff has suggested prospective modifications to the program by which DPL hedges price risk for its gas purchases. |
In compliance with the merger settlement approved by the MPSC in connection with the merger of Pepco and Conectiv, on December 4, 2003, DPL and Pepco submitted testimony and supporting schedules to establish electric distribution rates in Maryland effective July 1, 2004, when the current distribution rate freeze/caps end. The filings of each company demonstrate that it is in an under-earning situation. As provided in the terms of the merger settlement, DPL requested it be allowed to put into effect July 1, 2004, a rate increase for non-residential customers to offset the nuclear decommissioning equivalent decrease that was effective July 1, 2003. The merger settlement provides that Pepco's distribution rates can only decrease or remain unchanged after July 1, 2004. With limited exceptions, the merger settlement does not permit either company to increase distribution rates until after December 31, 2006. The MPSC Staff has filed testimony stating that no distribution rate reductions are justified and that DPL should be authorized to |
22 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
increase its non-residential customers' distribution rates by approximately $1.1 million. The Office of the People's Counsel (OPC) agrees that no distribution rate reduction is warranted for DPL or Pepco if the respective DPL and Pepco capital structures are used in determining whether existing rates should be reduced. However, OPC argues that the Pepco Holdings' consolidated capital structure and capital costs should be used to determine whether distribution rate reductions for Pepco and DPL are warranted. Based on PHI's consolidated capital structure, OPC recommended that DPL's and Pepco's distribution rates be reduced. Hearings in the Pepco case concluded April 27, 2004. Hearings in the DPL case will be held on May 11 and 12, 2004. Separate MPSC decisions in the DPL and Pepco cases are expected to be issued in early July 2004. Neither Pepco nor DPL can predict the outcome of the proceedings. |
SOS and POLR Proceedings |
District of Columbia |
On March 1, 2004, the DCPSC issued an order adopting the "wholesale" model for Standard Offer Service (SOS) in the District of Columbia after fixed rate SOS ends February 7, 2005. Under the wholesale model, Pepco will continue as the SOS provider after February 7, 2005. Several parties have filed applications for reconsideration of the order adopting the wholesale model that are pending before the DCPSC. PHI cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. |
In December 2003, the DCPSC issued an order adopting terms and conditions that would apply if the wholesale SOS model were adopted. Pepco and most of the other parties in the case filed applications for reconsideration and/or clarification of various parts of this order, and on March 1, 2004, the DCPSC granted in part and denied in part the applications for reconsideration and/or clarification. Because the DCPSC changed certain rules in its order granting in part and denying in part applications for reconsideration of the wholesale SOS terms and conditions, several parties filed for reconsideration of the March 1, 2004 order. Those applications for reconsideration are pending decision by the DCPSC. The DCPSC has also instituted an evidentiary proceeding to consider the amount of the administrative charge which Pepco may collect for providing SOS on and after February 8, 2005. The DCPSC intends to issue a decision by August&n bsp;10, 2004. |
Virginia |
In March 2004, Virginia amended its Electric Utility Restructuring Act to extend the rate freeze provisions applicable to DPL's rates for both provider of last resort (POLR) supply and distribution. The rate freezes, previously scheduled to expire on July 1, 2007, were extended to December 31, 2010, except that one change in base rates can be proposed by DPLprior to July 1, 2007, and one additional change in base rates can be proposed by DPLbetween that date and December 31, 2010. Additionally, rates may be increased to reflect increased purchased power costs, increased taxes, or increased costs to comply with environmental or reliability requirements. |
The Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act obligates DPL to offer POLR service during the period that rates are frozen and thereafter, until relieved of that obligation by the Virginia State Corporation Commission (VSCC). |
23 ______________________________________________________________________________ |
On December 3, 2003, DPL and Conectiv Energy filed with the VSCC an amendment to extend their power supply agreement for one year,i.e., through December 31, 2004, and on a month-to-month basis thereafter, as it applies to power supply for DPL's Virginia POLR customers. The VSCC approved the amendment in an order issued on March 1, 2004. After December 31, 2004 either DPL or Conectiv Energy can terminate Conectiv Energy's obligation to provide supplies to meet DPL's Virginia POLR obligations by giving 30 days written notice to the other party. |
Third Party Guarantees, Indemnifications, and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements |
Pepco Holdings and certain of its subsidiaries have various financial and performance guarantees and indemnification obligations which are entered into in the normal course of business to facilitate commercial transactions with third parties as discussed below. |
As of March 31, 2004, Pepco Holdings and its subsidiaries were parties to a variety of agreements pursuant to which they were guarantors for standby letters of credit, performance residual value, and other commitments and obligations. The fair value of these commitments and obligations was not required to be recorded in Pepco Holdings' Consolidated Balance Sheets; however, certain energy marketing obligations of Conectiv Energy were recorded. The commitments and obligations, in millions of dollars, were as follows: |
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS |
POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY |
(1) ORGANIZATION |
Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco) is engaged in the transmission and distribution of electricity in Washington, D.C. and major portions of Prince George's and Montgomery Counties in suburban Maryland. Pepco's service territory covers approximately 640 square miles and has a population of approximately 2 million. On August 1, 2002 Pepco completed its acquisition of Conectiv, at which time Pepco and Conectiv became wholly owned subsidiaries of Pepco Holdings, Inc. (Pepco Holdings or PHI). PHI is a public utility holding company registered under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA)and is subject to the regulatory oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under PUHCA. |
(2) ACCOUNTING POLICY AND PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCLOSURES |
Financial Statement Presentation |
Pepco's unaudited consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP have been omitted. Therefore, these financial statements should be read along with the annual financial statements included in Pepco's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. In the opinion of Pepco's management, the consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments (which all are of a normal recurring nature) necessary to present fairly Pepco's financial condition as of March 31, 2004, in accordance with GAAP. Interim results for the three months ended March 31, 2004 may not be indicative of results that will be realized for the full year ending December 31, 200 4. Additionally, certain prior period balances have been reclassified in order to conform to current period presentation. |
FIN 45 |
Pepco applied the provisions of FASB Interpretation No. 45, "Guarantor's Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others" (FIN 45), commencing in 2003 to its agreements that contain guarantee and indemnification clauses. These provisions expand those required by FASB Statement No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies," by requiring a guarantor to recognize a liability on its balance sheet for the fair value of obligations it assumes under certain guarantees issued or modified after December 31, 2002 and to disclose certain types of guarantees, even if the likelihood of requiring the guarantor's performance under the guarantee is remote. |
As of March 31, 2004, Pepco did not have material obligations under guarantees or indemnifications issued or modified after December 31, 2002, which are required to be recognized as a liability on its consolidated balance sheets. |
32 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
FIN 46 |
On December 31, 2003, FIN 46 was implemented by Pepco. FIN 46 was revised and superseded by FASB Interpretation No. 46 (revised December 2003), "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities" (FIN 46R) which clarified some of the provisions of FIN 46 and exempted certain entities from its requirements. FIN 46R is applicable to Pepco's financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2004. The implementation of FIN 46R (including the evaluation of interests in purchase power arrangements) did not impact Pepco's financial condition or results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2004. |
As part of the FIN 46R evaluation, Pepco reviewed its power purchase agreements (PPAs), including its Non-Utility Generation (NUG) contracts, to determine (i) if its interest in each entity that is a counterparty to a PPA agreement was a variable interest, (ii) whether the entity was a variable interest entity and (iii) if so, whether Pepco was the primary beneficiary. Due to a variable element in the pricing structure of its PPA with one entity, Panda-Brandywine, L.P. (Panda), Pepco potentially assumes the variability in the operations of the plant of this entity and therefore has a variable interest in the entity. However, due to Pepco's inability to obtain information from the entity considered to be confidential and proprietary by the entity, Pepco was unable to obtain sufficient information to conduct the analysis required under FIN 46R to determine whether the entity was a variable interest entity or if Pepco was the primary beneficiary . As a result, Pepco has applied the scope exemption from the application of FIN 46R for enterprises that have conducted exhaustive efforts to obtain the necessary information. |
Power purchases related to the Panda PPA in the quarters ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 were approximately $20 million and $23 million, respectively. Power purchases related to the Panda PPA in the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001 were approximately $80 million, $74 million and $75 million, respectively. Pepco's exposure to loss under the Panda PPA is discussed in Note (4) Commitments And Contingencies, under "Relationship with Mirant Corporation." |
Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost |
The following Pepco Holdings information is for the three months ended March 31, |
The actual components of net periodic benefit cost for the 2003 interim period are not available. The component amounts presented above for the 2003 interim period were calculated in proportion to the annual amounts presented |
33 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
in Pepco Holdings' financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2003. These component amounts are presented for comparison purposes only. |
Pension |
The 2004 pension net periodic benefit cost of $8.4 million includes $3.6 million for Pepco. The 2003 pension net periodic benefit cost of $8.7 million includes $5.2 million for Pepco. |
Pension Contributions |
Pepco Holdings funding policy with regard to the pension plan is to maintain a funding level in excess of 100% of its accumulated benefit obligation (ABO). PHI's defined benefit plan currently meets the minimum funding requirements of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) without any additional funding. In 2003 and 2002 PHI made discretionary tax-deductible cash contributions to the plan of $50 million and $35 million, respectively. Assuming no changes to the current pension plan assumptions, PHI projects no funding will be required in 2004; however PHI may elect to make a discretionary tax-deductible contribution, if required to maintain its assets in excess of its ABO. As of March 31, 2004, no contributions have been made. |
Other Post-Retirement Benefits |
The 2004 Other Post-Retirement net periodic benefit cost of $11.0 million includes $4.5 million for Pepco. The 2003 Other Post-Retirement net periodic benefit cost of $10.1 million includes $4.2 million for Pepco. |
FASB Staff Position (FSP 106-1), Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (the Act) |
The Act became effective on December 8, 2003. The Act introduces a prescription drug benefit under Medicare (Medicare Part D) as well as a federal subsidy to sponsors of retiree health care benefit plans that provide a benefit that is at least actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D. |
SFAS No. 106 "Employers Accounting for Post-retirement Benefits Other than Pensions" requires presently enacted changes in relevant laws to be considered in current period measurements of post-retirement benefit costs and the Accumulated Post-Retirement Benefit Obligation (APBO). Therefore, under that guidance, measures of the APBO and net periodic post-retirement benefit costs on or after the date of enactment should reflect the effects of the Act. |
However, due to certain accounting issues raised by the Act that are not explicitly addressed by SFAS No. 106 and uncertainties that may exist as to reliable information available on which to measure the effects of the Act, the FSP 106-1 allows a plan sponsor to elect to defer recognizing the effects of the Act in the accounting for its plan under SFAS No. 106 and in providing disclosures related to the plan required by SFAS No. 132 (revised 2003), "Employers' Disclosures about Pensions and Other Post-retirement Benefits," until authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy is issued, or until certain other events occur. |
Pepco Holdings sponsors post-retirement health care plans that provide prescription drug benefits. Pepco Holdings did not elect the deferral provided by the FSP 106-1. The APBO as of December 31, 2003 was reduced by |
34 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
$28 million to reflect the effects of the Act. For the current quarter and all of 2003, Pepco Holdings' net periodic postretirement benefit expense has not been reduced to reflect the Act. It is estimated that the annual postretirement benefit cost will be reduced by approximately $4 million due to effects of the Act. This reduction includes both the decrease in the cost of future benefits being earned and an amortization of the APBO reduction over the future average working lifetime of the participants, or 13.5 years.The anticipated claims costs expected to be incurred have been adjusted to reflect the cost sharing between Medicare and Pepco Holdings. Participation rates have not been changed. In reflecting the effects of the Act, Pepco Holdings has determined which plans are eligible for Medicare cost sharing by analyzing the terms of each of its plans. It has recognized Medicare cost sharing for a plan only if Pepco Holdings' projected prescription drug cov erage is expected to be at least as generous as the expected contribution by Medicare to a prescription drug plan not provided by Pepco Holdings. |
Specific authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy under the Act is pending and that guidance, when issued, could require Pepco Holdings to change previously reported information. When issued, the guidance on accounting for the federal subsidy will include transition guidance, as applicable, for entities that elected to defer accounting for the effects of the Act and those that did not. |
The effect of the subsidy on the current period Other Post-Retirement net periodic benefit cost of $11.0 million would be approximately a $1 million reduction due to the subsidy. Approximately $.5 million would be related to the amortization of the actuarial gain, $.1 million would be a subsidy-related reduction in current period service cost and approximately $.4 million would be a subsidy-related reduction in interest cost on the APBO. |
Severance Costs |
During 2002, Pepco Holdings' management approved initiatives by Pepco to streamline its operating structure by reducing its number of employees. These initiatives met the criteria for the accounting treatment provided under EITF No. 94-3 "Liability Recognition for Certain Employee Termination Benefits and Other Costs to Exit an Activity (including Certain Costs Incurred in a Restructuring)." A roll forward of the severance balance is as follows. (Amounts in millions) |
Substantially all of the severance liability accrued at March 31, 2004 will be paid through mid 2005. Employees have the option of taking severance payments in a lump sum or over a period of time. |
(3) SEGMENT INFORMATION |
In accordance with SFAS No. 131 "Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information," Pepco has one segment, its regulated utility business. |
35 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
(4) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
Relationship with Mirant Corporation |
In 2000, Pepco sold substantially all of its electricity generation assets to Mirant Corporation, formerly Southern Energy, Inc. As part of the sale, Pepco entered into several ongoing contractual arrangements with Mirant and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, Mirant). On July 14, 2003, Mirant Corporation and most of its subsidiaries filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas (the Bankruptcy Court). Under bankruptcy law, a debtor generally may, with authorization from a bankruptcy court, assume or reject executory contracts. A rejection of an executory contract entitles the counterparty to file a claim as an unsecured creditor against the bankruptcy estate for damages incurred due to the rejection of the contract. In a bankruptcy proceeding, a debtor can normally restructure some or all of its pre-petition liabilities. |
Depending on the outcome of the matters discussed below, the Mirant bankruptcy could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations of Pepco. However, management currently believes that Pepco currently has sufficient cash, cash flow and borrowing capacity under its credit facilities and in the capital markets to be able to satisfy the additional cash requirements that are expected to arise due to the Mirant bankruptcy. Accordingly, management does not anticipate that the Mirant bankruptcy will impair the ability of Pepco to fulfill its contractual obligations or to fund projected capital expenditures. On this basis, management currently does not believe that the Mirant bankruptcy will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of Pepco. |
Transition Power Agreements |
As part of the asset purchase and sale agreement for the Pepco generation assets (the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement), Pepco and Mirant entered into Transition Power Agreements for Maryland and the District of Columbia, respectively (collectively, the TPAs). Under these agreements, Mirant was obligated to supply Pepco with all of the capacity and energy needed to fulfill its standard offer service obligations in Maryland through June 2004 and its standard offer service obligations in the District of Columbia into January 2005. |
To avoid the potential rejection of the TPAs, Pepco and Mirant entered into an Amended Settlement Agreement and Release dated as of October 24, 2003 (the Settlement Agreement) pursuant to which Mirant has assumed both of the TPAs and the terms of the TPAs were modified. The Settlement Agreement also provides that Pepco has an allowed, pre-petition general unsecured claim against Mirant in the amount of $105 million (the Pepco TPA Claim). |
The amount, if any, that Pepco will be able to recover from the Mirant bankruptcy estate in respect of the Pepco TPA Claim will depend on the amount of assets available for distribution to creditors. At the current stage of the bankruptcy proceeding, there is insufficient information to determine the amount, if any, that Pepco might be able to recover from the Mirant bankruptcy estate. |
36 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
Power Purchase Agreements |
Under agreements with FirstEnergy Corp., formerly Ohio Edison (FirstEnergy), and Allegheny Energy, Inc., both entered into in 1987, Pepco is obligated to purchase from FirstEnergy 450 megawatts of capacity and energy annually through December 2005 (the FirstEnergy PPA). Under an agreement with Panda-Brandywine L.P. (Panda), entered into in 1991, Pepco is obligated to purchase from Panda 230 megawatts of capacity and energy annually through 2021 (the Panda PPA). In each case, the purchase price is substantially in excess of current market prices. As a part of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement, Pepco entered into a "back-to-back" arrangement with Mirant. Under this arrangement, Mirant is obligated, among other things, to purchase from Pepco the capacity and energy that Pepco is obligated to purchase under the FirstEnergy PPA and the Panda PPA at a price equal to the price Pepco is obligated to pay under the PPAs (the PPA-Related Obligations). |
Pepco Pre-Petition Claims |
When Mirant filed its bankruptcy petition on July 14, 2003, Mirant had unpaid obligations to Pepco of approximately $29 million, consisting primarily of payments due to Pepco in respect of the PPA-Related Obligations (the Mirant Pre-Petition Obligations). The Mirant Pre-Petition Obligations constitute part of the indebtedness for which Mirant is seeking relief in its bankruptcy proceeding. Pepco has filed Proofs of Claim in the Mirant bankruptcy proceeding in the amount of approximately $26 million to recover this indebtedness; however, the amount of Pepco's recovery, if any, is uncertain. The $3 million difference between Mirant's unpaid obligation to Pepco and the $26 million Proofs of Claim filed by Pepco primarily represents a TPA settlement adjustment which is included in the $105 million Proofs of Claim filed by Pepco against the Mirant debtors in respect of the Pepco TPA Claim. In view of this uncertainty, Pepco, in the third quarter of 2003, expensed $14.5 million to establish a reserve against the $29 million receivable from Mirant. In January 2004, Pepco paid approximately $2.5 million to Panda in settlement of certain billing disputes under the Panda PPA that related to periods after the sale of Pepco's generation assets to Mirant. Pepco believes that under the terms of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement, Mirant is obligated to reimburse Pepco for the settlement payment. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2004 Pepco increased the amount of the receivable due from Mirant by approximately $2.5 million, and Pepco intends to file Proofs of Claim for this amount against Mirant. Pepco currently estimates that the $14.5 million expensed in the third quarter of 2003 represents the portion of the entire $31.5 million receivable unlikely to be recovered in bankruptcy, and no additional reserve has been established for the $2.5 million increase in the receivable. The amount expensed represents Pepco's estimate of the possible outcome in bankruptcy, although the amount ultimately recoverable could be higher or lower. |
Mirant's Attempt to Reject the PPA-Related Obligations |
On August 28, 2003, Mirant filed with the Bankruptcy Court a motion seeking authorization to reject its PPA-Related Obligations. |
Upon motions filed by Pepco and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), on October 9, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the District Court) withdrew jurisdiction over the rejection proceedings from the Bankruptcy Court. On December 23, 2003, the District Court denied Mirant's motion to reject the PPA-Related Obligations. The District Court's decision is being appealed by Mirant and The Official |
37 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Mirant Corporation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 5, 2004. |
Pepco is exercising all available legal remedies and vigorously opposing Mirant's continued attempts to reject the PPA-Related Obligations in order to protect the interests of its customers and shareholders. While Pepco believes that it has substantial legal bases to oppose the attempt to reject the agreements, the outcome of Mirant's efforts to reject the PPA-Related Obligations is uncertain. |
In accordance with the Bankruptcy Court's order, Mirant is continuing to perform the PPA-Related Obligations pending the resolution of the ongoing proceedings. However, if Mirant ultimately is successful in rejecting, and is otherwise permitted to stop performing the PPA-Related Obligations, Pepco could be required to repay to Mirant, for the period beginning on the effective date of the rejection (which date could be prior to the date of the court's order and possibly as early as September 18, 2003) and ending on the date Mirant is entitled to cease its purchases of energy and capacity from Pepco, all amounts paid by Mirant to Pepco in respect of the PPA-Related Obligations, less an amount equal to the price at which Mirant resold the purchased energy and capacity. Pepco estimates that the amount it could be required to repay to Mirant in the unlikely event September 18, 2003, is determined to be the effective date of rejection, is approx imately $69.2 million as of May 1, 2004. This repayment would entitle Pepco to file a claim against the bankruptcy estate in an amount equal to the amount repaid. Mirant has also asked the Bankruptcy Court to require Pepco to disgorge all amounts paid by Mirant to Pepco in respect of the PPA-Related Obligations, less an amount equal to the price at which Mirant resold the purchased energy and capacity, for the period July 14, 2003 (the date on which Mirant filed its bankruptcy petition) to September 18, 2003, on the theory that Mirant did not receive value for those payments. Pepco estimates that the amount it would be required to repay to Mirant on the disgorgement theory is approximately $22.5 million. Pepco believes a claim based on this theory should be entitled to administrative expense status for which complete recovery could be expected. If Pepco were required to repay any such amounts for either period, the payment would be expensed at the time the payment is made. |
The following are estimates prepared by Pepco of its potential future exposure if Mirant's motion to reject its PPA-Related Obligations ultimately is successful. These estimates are based in part on current market prices and forward price estimates for energy and capacity, and do not include financing costs, all of which could be subject to significant fluctuation. The estimates assume no recovery from the Mirant bankruptcy estate and no regulatory recovery, either of which would mitigate the effect of the estimated loss. Pepco does not consider it realistic to assume that there will be no such recoveries. Based on these assumptions, Pepco estimates that its pre-tax exposure as of May 1, 2004, representing the loss of the future benefit of the PPA-Related Obligations to Pepco, is as follows: |
The ability of Pepco to recover from the Mirant bankruptcy estate in respect of the Mirant Pre-Petition Obligations and damages if the PPA-Related Obligations are successfully rejected will depend on whether Pepco's claims are allowed, the amount of assets available for distribution to creditors and Pepco's priority relative to other creditors. At the current stage of the bankruptcy proceeding, there is insufficient information to determine the amount, if any, that Pepco might be able to recover from the Mirant bankruptcy estate, whether the recovery would be in cash or another form of payment, or the timing of any recovery. |
If Mirant ultimately is successful in rejecting the PPA-Related Obligations and Pepco's full claim is not recovered from the Mirant bankruptcy estate, Pepco may seek authority from the Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC) and the District of Columbia Public Service Commission (DCPSC) to recover its additional costs. Pepco is committed to working with its regulatory authorities to achieve a result that is appropriate for its shareholders and customers. Under the provisions of the settlement agreements approved by the MPSC and the DCPSC in the deregulation proceedings in which Pepco agreed to divest its generation assets under certain conditions, the PPAs were to become assets of Pepco's distribution business if they could not be sold. Pepco believes that, if Mirant ultimately is successful in rejecting the PPA-Related Obligations, these provisions would allow the stranded costs of the PPAs that are not recovered from the Mirant bankruptcy estate to be recovered through Pepco's distribution rates. If Pepco's interpretation of the settlement agreements is confirmed, Pepco expects to be able to establish the amount of its anticipated recovery as a regulatory asset. However, there is no assurance that Pepco's interpretation of the settlement agreements would be confirmed by the respective public service commissions. |
If the PPA-Related Obligations are successfully rejected, and there is no regulatory recovery, Pepco will incur a loss. However, the accounting treatment of such a loss depends on a number of legal and regulatory factors, and is not determinable at this time. |
The SMECO Agreement |
As a term of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement, Pepco assigned to Mirant a facility and capacity agreement with Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SMECO) under which Pepco was obligated to purchase the capacity of an 84-megawatt combustion turbine installed and owned by SMECO at a former Pepco generating station (the SMECO Agreement). The SMECO Agreement expires in 2015 and contemplates a monthly payment to SMECO of approximately $.5 million. Pepco is responsible to SMECO for the performance of the SMECO Agreement if Mirant fails to perform its obligations thereunder. At this time, Mirant continues to make post-petition payments due to SMECO. |
39 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
However, on March 15, 2004, Mirant filed a complaint with the Bankruptcy Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the facility and capacity credit agreement is an unexpired lease of non-residential real property rather than an executory contract and that if Mirant were to successfully reject the agreement, any claim against the bankruptcy estate for damages made by SMECO (or by Pepco as subrogee) would be subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that limit the recovery of rejection damages by lessors. Pepco believes that there is no reasonable factual or legal basis to support Mirant's contention that the SMECO Agreement is a lease of real property and has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the outcome of this proceeding cannot be predicted. |
Rate Proceedings |
In compliance with the merger settlement approved by the MPSC in connection with the merger of Pepco and Conectiv, on December 4, 2003, Pepco submitted testimony and supporting schedules to establish electric distribution rates in Maryland effective July 1, 2004, when the current distribution rate freeze/caps end. Pepco's filing demonstrates that it is in an under-earning situation. The merger settlement provides that Pepco's distribution rates can only decrease or remain unchanged after July 1, 2004. With limited exceptions, the merger settlement does not permit Pepco to increase distribution rates until after December 31, 2006. The MPSC Staff has filed testimony stating that no distribution rate reductions are justified. The Office of the People's Counsel (OPC) agrees that no distribution rate reduction is warranted for Pepco if the Pepco capital structure is used in determining whether existing rates should be reduced. How ever, OPC argues that the Pepco Holdings' consolidated capital structure and capital costs should be used to determine whether distribution rate reductions for Pepco are warranted. Based on PHI's consolidated capital structure, OPC recommended that Pepco's distribution rates be reduced. Hearings in the Pepco case concluded April 27, 2004. The MPSC decision is expected to be issued in early July 2004. Pepco cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding. |
SOS Proceedings |
District of Columbia |
On March 1, 2004, the DCPSC issued an order adopting the "wholesale" model for Standard Offer Service (SOS) in the District of Columbia after fixed rate SOS ends February 7, 2005. Under the wholesale model, Pepco will continue as the SOS provider after February 7, 2005. Several parties have filed applications for reconsideration of the order adopting the wholesale model that are pending before the DCPSC. PHI cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. |
In December 2003, the DCPSC issued an order adopting terms and conditions that would apply if the wholesale SOS model were adopted. Pepco and most of the other parties in the case filed applications for reconsideration and/or clarification of various parts of this order, and on March 1, 2004, the DCPSC granted in part and denied in part the applications for reconsideration and/or clarification. Because the DCPSC changed certain rules in its order granting in part and denying in part applications for reconsideration of the wholesale SOS terms and conditions, several parties filed for reconsideration of the March 1, 2004 order. Those applications for reconsideration are pending decision by the DCPSC. The DCPSC has also instituted an evidentiary proceeding to consider the amount of the administrative charge which Pepco may collect for providing SOS on and after February 8, 2005. The DCPSC intends to issue a decision by August&n bsp;10, 2004. |
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS |
DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY |
(1) ORGANIZATION |
Delmarva Power & Light Company (DPL) is engaged in the transmission and distribution of electricity in Delaware and portions of Maryland and Virginia and provides gas distribution service in northern Delaware. DPL's electricity distribution service territory covers approximately 6,000 square miles and has a population of approximately 1.25 million. DPL's natural gas distribution service territory covers approximately 275 square miles and has a population of approximately 523,000. DPL is a wholly owned subsidiary of Conectiv. On August 1, 2002, Pepco completed its acquisition of Conectiv, at which time Pepco and Conectiv became wholly owned subsidiaries of Pepco Holdings, Inc. (Pepco Holdings or PHI). PHI is a public utility holding company registered under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA)and is subject to the regulatory oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under PUHCA. |
(2) ACCOUNTING POLICY AND PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCLOSURES |
Financial Statement Presentation |
DPL's unaudited consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP have been omitted. Therefore, these financial statements should be read along with the annual financial statements included in DPL's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003. In the opinion of DPL's management, the consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments (which all are of a normal recurring nature) necessary to present fairly DPL's financial condition as of March 31, 2004, in accordance with GAAP. Interim results for the three months ended March 31, 2004 may not be indicative of results that will be realized for the full year ending December 31, 2004. Additio nally, certain prior period balances have been reclassified in order to conform to current period presentation. |
FIN 45 |
DPL applied the provisions of FASB Interpretation No. 45, "Guarantor's Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others" (FIN 45), commencing in 2003 to its agreements that contain guarantee and indemnification clauses. These provisions expand those required by FASB Statement No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies," by requiring a guarantor to recognize a liability on its balance sheet for the fair value of obligations it assumes under certain guarantees issued or modified after December 31, 2002 and to disclose certain types of guarantees, even if the likelihood of requiring the guarantor's performance under the guarantee is remote. |
As of March 31, 2004, DPL did not have material obligations under guarantees or indemnifications issued or modified after December 31, 2002, which are required to be recognized as a liability on its consolidated balance sheets. |
46 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
FIN 46 |
On December 31, 2003, FIN 46 was implemented by DPL. FIN 46 was revised and superseded by FASB Interpretation No. 46 (revised December 2003), "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities" (FIN 46R) which clarified some of the provisions of FIN 46 and exempted certain entities from its requirements. FIN 46R is applicable to DPL's financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2004. The implementation of FIN 46R did not materially impact DPL's financial condition or results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2004. |
Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost |
The following Pepco Holdings information is for the three months ended March 31, |
The actual components of net periodic benefit cost for the 2003 interim period are not available. The component amounts presented above for the 2003 interim period were calculated in proportion to the annual amounts presented in Pepco Holdings' financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2003. These component amounts are presented for comparison purposes only. |
Pension |
The 2004 pension net periodic benefit cost of $8.4 million includes $(.5) million for DPL. The 2003 pension net periodic benefit cost of $8.7 million includes $(1.4) million for DPL. |
Pension Contributions |
Pepco Holdings funding policy with regard to the pension plan is to maintain a funding level in excess of 100% of its accumulated benefit obligation (ABO). PHI's defined benefit plan currently meets the minimum funding requirements of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) without any additional funding. In 2003 and 2002 PHI made discretionary tax-deductible cash contributions to the plan of $50 million and $35 million, respectively. Assuming no changes to the current pension plan assumptions, PHI projects no funding will be required in 2004; however PHI may elect to make a discretionary tax-deductible contribution, if required to maintain its assets in excess of its ABO. As of March 31, 2004, no contributions have been made. |
47 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
Other Post-Retirement Benefits |
The 2004 Other Post-Retirement net periodic benefit cost of $11.0 million includes $2.3 million for DPL. The 2003 Other Post-Retirement net periodic benefit cost of $10.1 million includes $1.7 million for DPL. |
FASB Staff Position (FSP 106-1), Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (the Act) |
The Act became effective on December 8, 2003. The Act introduces a prescription drug benefit under Medicare (Medicare Part D) as well as a federal subsidy to sponsors of retiree health care benefit plans that provide a benefit that is at least actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D. |
SFAS No. 106 "Employers Accounting for Post-retirement Benefits Other than Pensions" requires presently enacted changes in relevant laws to be considered in current period measurements of post-retirement benefit costs and the Accumulated Post-Retirement Benefit Obligation (APBO). Therefore, under that guidance, measures of the APBO and net periodic post-retirement benefit costs on or after the date of enactment should reflect the effects of the Act. |
However, due to certain accounting issues raised by the Act that are not explicitly addressed by SFAS No. 106 and uncertainties that may exist as to reliable information available on which to measure the effects of the Act, the FSP 106-1 allows a plan sponsor to elect to defer recognizing the effects of the Act in the accounting for its plan under SFAS No. 106 and in providing disclosures related to the plan required by SFAS No. 132 (revised 2003), "Employers' Disclosures about Pensions and Other Post-retirement Benefits," until authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy is issued, or until certain other events occur. |
Pepco Holdings sponsors post-retirement health care plans that provide prescription drug benefits. Pepco Holdings did not elect the deferral provided by the FSP 106-1. The APBO as of December 31, 2003 was reduced by $28 million to reflect the effects of the Act. For the current quarter and all of 2003, Pepco Holdings' net periodic postretirement benefit expense has not been reduced to reflect the Act. It is estimated that the annual postretirement benefit cost will be reduced by approximately $4 million due to effects of the Act. This reduction includes both the decrease in the cost of future benefits being earned and an amortization of the APBO reduction over the future average working lifetime of the participants, or 13.5 years.The anticipated claims costs expected to be incurred have been adjusted to reflect the cost sharing between Medicare and Pepco Holdings. Participation rates have not been changed. In reflecting the effects of the Act, Pepco Holdings has determined which plans are eligible for Medicare cost sharing by analyzing the terms of each of its plans. It has recognized Medicare cost sharing for a plan only if Pepco Holdings' projected prescription drug coverage is expected to be at least as generous as the expected contribution by Medicare to a prescription drug plan not provided by Pepco Holdings. |
Specific authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy under the Act is pending and that guidance, when issued, could require Pepco Holdings to change previously reported information. When issued, the guidance on accounting for the federal subsidy will include transition guidance, as applicable, for entities that elected to defer accounting for the effects of the Act and those that did not. |
48 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
The effect of the subsidy on the current period Other Post-Retirement net periodic benefit cost of $11.0 million would be approximately a $1 million reduction due to the subsidy. Approximately $.5 million would be related to the amortization of the actuarial gain, $.1 million would be a subsidy-related reduction in current period service cost and approximately $.4 million would be a subsidy-related reduction in interest cost on the APBO. |
(3) SEGMENT INFORMATION |
In accordance with SFAS No. 131, "Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information," DPL has one segment, its regulated utility business. |
DPL's operating expenses and revenues include amounts for transactions with other PHI subsidiaries. DPL purchased electric energy, electric capacity and natural gas from PHI subsidiaries in the amounts of $148.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and $158.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2003. DPL also sold natural gas and electricity and leased certain assets to other Conectiv and PHI subsidiaries. |
(4) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
Rate Proceedings |
In December 2003, the Delaware Public Service Commission (DPSC) approved a settlement agreement that provided for an annual increase of $7.75 million in DPL's gas base rate. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, on February 13, 2004, DPL filed for an Environmental Surcharge of approximately $522,000 amortized over five years to recover out-of-pocket costs associated with gas environmental issues. The DPSC approved this surcharge on April 20, 2004. The surcharge will be adjusted year-to-year to reflect DPL's actual costs. |
DPL filed on February 13, 2004 for a change in electric ancillary service rates that has an aggregate effect of increasing annual revenues by $13.1 million or 2.4%. This filing was prompted by the increasing ancillary service costs charged to DPL by PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM). On February 24, 2004, the DPSC accepted the filing and placed the increase into effect on March 15, 2004, subject to refund. Intervention by another party has been filed. Unless the proceeding is settled, evidentiary hearings will be held in late August with a decision expected before the end of 2004. |
On August 29, 2003, DPL submitted its annual Gas Cost Recovery (GCR) rate filing to the DPSC. In its filing, DPL sought to increase its GCR rate by approximately 15.8% in anticipation of increasing natural gas commodity costs. The GCR rate, which permits DPL to recover its procurement gas costs through customer rates, became effective November 1, 2003 and was subject to refund pending evidentiary hearings that were held on April 19, 2004. No party has proposed to modify DPL's proposed GCR rate, thus no refund is required. However, DPSC Staff has suggested prospective modifications to the program by which DPL hedges price risk for its gas purchases. |
In compliance with the merger settlement approved by the MPSC in connection with the merger of Pepco and Conectiv, on December 4, 2003, DPL submitted testimony and supporting schedules to establish electric distribution rates in Maryland effective July 1, 2004, when the current distribution rate freeze/caps end. DPL's filing demonstrates that it is in an under-earning situation. As provided in the terms of the merger settlement, DPL requested it |
49 ______________________________________________________________________________ |
be allowed to put into effect July 1, 2004, a rate increase for non-residential customers to offset the nuclear decommissioning equivalent decrease that was effective July 1, 2003. With limited exceptions, the merger settlement does not permit DPL to increase distribution rates until after December 31, 2006. The MPSC Staff has filed testimony stating that no distribution rate reductions are justified and that DPL should be authorized to increase its non-residential customers' distribution rates by approximately $1.1 million. The Office of the People's Counsel (OPC) agrees that no distribution rate reduction is warranted for DPL if the DPL capital structure is used in determining whether existing rates should be reduced. However, OPC argues that the Pepco Holdings' consolidated capital structure and capital costs should be used to determine whether distribution rate reductions for DPL are warranted. Based on PHI's consolidated capital structure, OPC recommended that D PL's distribution rates be reduced. Hearings will be held on May 11 and 12, 2004. The MPSC decision is expected to be issued in early July 2004. DPL cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding. |
POLR Proceedings |
Virginia |
In March 2004, Virginia amended its Electric Utility Restructuring Act to extend the rate freeze provisions applicable to DPL's rates for both provider of last resort (POLR) supply and distribution. The rate freezes, previously scheduled to expire on July 1, 2007, were extended to December 31, 2010, except that one change in base rates can be proposed by DPLprior to July 1, 2007, and one additional change in base rates can be proposed by DPLbetween that date and December 31, 2010. Additionally, rates may be increased to reflect increased purchased power costs, increased taxes, or increased costs to comply with environmental or reliability requirements. |
The Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act obligates DPL to offer POLR service during the period that rates are frozen and thereafter, until relieved of that obligation by the Virginia State Corporation Commission (VSCC). |
On December 3, 2003, DPL and Conectiv Energy filed with the VSCC an amendment to extend their power supply agreement for one year,i.e., through December 31, 2004, and on a month-to-month basis thereafter, as it applies to power supply for DPL's Virginia POLR customers. The VSCC approved the amendment in an order issued on March 1, 2004. After December 31, 2004 either DPL or Conectiv Energy can terminate Conectiv Energy's obligation to provide supplies to meet DPL's Virginia POLR obligations by giving 30 days written notice to the other party. |
50 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS |
ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY |
(1)ORGANIZATION |
Atlantic City Electric Company (ACE) is engaged in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity in southern New Jersey. ACE's service territory covers approximately 2,700 square miles and has a population of approximately 995,000. ACE is a wholly owned subsidiary of Conectiv. On August 1, 2002 Pepco completed its acquisition of Conectiv, at which time Pepco and Conectiv became wholly owned subsidiaries of Pepco Holdings, Inc. (Pepco Holdings or PHI). PHI is a public utility holding company registered under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA)and is subject to the regulatory oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under PUHCA. |
(2) ACCOUNTING POLICY AND PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCLOSURES |
Financial Statement Presentation |
ACE's unaudited consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP have been omitted. Therefore, these financial statements should be read along with the annual financial statements included in ACE's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003. In the opinion of ACE's management, the consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments (which all are of a normal recurring nature) necessary to present fairly ACE's financial condition as of March 31, 2004, in accordance with GAAP. Interim results for the three months ended March 31, 2004 may not be indicative of results that will be realized for the full year ending December 31, 2004 . Additionally, certain prior period balances have been reclassified in order to conform to current period presentation. |
FIN 45 |
ACE applied the provisions of FASB Interpretation No. 45, "Guarantor's Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others" (FIN 45), commencing in 2003 to its agreements that contain guarantee and indemnification clauses. These provisions expand those required by FASB Statement No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies," by requiring a guarantor to recognize a liability on its balance sheet for the fair value of obligations it assumes under certain guarantees issued or modified after December 31, 2002 and to disclose certain types of guarantees, even if the likelihood of requiring the guarantor's performance under the guarantee is remote. |
As of March 31, 2004, ACE did not have material obligations under guarantees or indemnifications issued or modified after December 31, 2002, which are required to be recognized as a liability on its consolidated balance sheets. |
56 ______________________________________________________________________________ |
Fin 46 |
On December 31, 2003, FIN 46 was implemented by ACE. FIN 46 was revised and superseded by FASB Interpretation No. 46 (revised December 2003), "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities" (FIN 46R) which clarified some of the provisions of FIN 46 and exempted certain entities from its requirements. FIN 46R is applicable to ACE's financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2004. The implementation of FIN 46R (including the evaluation of interests in purchase power arrangements) did not impact ACE's financial condition or results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2004. |
As part of the FIN 46R evaluation, ACE reviewed its power purchase agreements (PPAs), including its Non-Utility Generation (NUG) contracts, to determine (i) if its interest in each entity that is a counterparty to a PPA agreement was a variable interest, (ii) whether the entity was a variable interest entity and (iii) if so, whether ACE was the primary beneficiary. Due to a variable element in the pricing structure of PPAs with three entities, ACE potentially assumes the variability in the operations of the plants of these entities and therefore has a variable interest in the entities. However, due to ACE's inability to obtain information from certain of these entities considered to be confidential and proprietary by the entities or the certain entities' own determination that they qualified for exemption as a business, ACE was unable to obtain sufficient information to conduct the analysis required under FIN 46R to determine whether these th ree entities were was a variable interest entities or if ACE was the primary beneficiary. As a result, ACE has applied the scope exemption from the application of FIN 46R for enterprises that have conducted exhaustive efforts to obtain the necessary information. |
Power purchases related to the PPAs with these three entities in the quarters ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 were approximately $57 million each quarter. Power purchases related to the PPAs in the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001 were approximately $222 million, $221 million and $227 million, respectively. ACE does not have exposure to loss under these contracts since cost recovery will be achieved from its customers through regulated rates. |
Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost |
The following Pepco Holdings information is for the three months ended March 31, |
The actual components of net periodic benefit cost for the 2003 interim period are not available. The component amounts presented above for the 2003 interim period were calculated in proportion to the annual amounts presented |
57 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
in Pepco Holdings' financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2003. These component amounts are presented for comparison purposes only. |
Pension |
The 2004 pension net periodic benefit cost of $8.4 million includes $2.1 million for ACE. The 2003 pension net periodic benefit cost of $8.7 million includes $3.2 million for ACE. |
Pension Contributions |
Pepco Holdings funding policy with regard to the pension plan is to maintain a funding level in excess of 100% of its accumulated benefit obligation (ABO). PHI's defined benefit plan currently meets the minimum funding requirements of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) without any additional funding. In 2003 and 2002 PHI made discretionary tax-deductible cash contributions to the plan of $50 million and $35 million, respectively. Assuming no changes to the current pension plan assumptions, PHI projects no funding will be required in 2004; however PHI may elect to make a discretionary tax-deductible contribution, if required to maintain its assets in excess of its ABO. As of March 31, 2004, no contributions have been made. |
Other Post-Retirement Benefits |
The 2004 Other Post-Retirement net periodic benefit cost of $11.0 million includes $2.5 million for ACE. The 2003 Other Post-Retirement net periodic benefit cost of $10.1 million includes $2.6 million for ACE. |
FASB Staff Position (FSP 106-1), Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (the Act) |
The Act became effective on December 8, 2003. The Act introduces a prescription drug benefit under Medicare (Medicare Part D) as well as a federal subsidy to sponsors of retiree health care benefit plans that provide a benefit that is at least actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D. |
SFAS No. 106 "Employers Accounting for Post-retirement Benefits Other than Pensions" requires presently enacted changes in relevant laws to be considered in current period measurements of post-retirement benefit costs and the Accumulated Post-Retirement Benefit Obligation (APBO). Therefore, under that guidance, measures of the APBO and net periodic post-retirement benefit costs on or after the date of enactment should reflect the effects of the Act. |
However, due to certain accounting issues raised by the Act that are not explicitly addressed by SFAS No. 106 and uncertainties that may exist as to reliable information available on which to measure the effects of the Act, the FSP 106-1 allows a plan sponsor to elect to defer recognizing the effects of the Act in the accounting for its plan under SFAS No. 106 and in providing disclosures related to the plan required by SFAS No. 132 (revised 2003), "Employers' Disclosures about Pensions and Other Post-retirement Benefits," until authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy is issued, or until certain other events occur. |
Pepco Holdings sponsors post-retirement health care plans that provide prescription drug benefits. Pepco Holdings did not elect the deferral provided by the FSP 106-1. The APBO as of December 31, 2003 was reduced by |
58 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
$28 million to reflect the effects of the Act. For the current quarter and all of 2003, Pepco Holdings' net periodic postretirement benefit expense has not been reduced to reflect the Act. It is estimated that the annual postretirement benefit cost will be reduced by approximately $4 million due to effects of the Act. This reduction includes both the decrease in the cost of future benefits being earned and an amortization of the APBO reduction over the future average working lifetime of the participants, or 13.5 years.The anticipated claims costs expected to be incurred have been adjusted to reflect the cost sharing between Medicare and Pepco Holdings. Participation rates have not been changed. In reflecting the effects of the Act, Pepco Holdings has determined which plans are eligible for Medicare cost sharing by analyzing the terms of each of its plans. It has recognized Medicare cost sharing for a plan only if Pepco Holdings' projected prescription drug cov erage is expected to be at least as generous as the expected contribution by Medicare to a prescription drug plan not provided by Pepco Holdings. |
Specific authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy under the Act is pending and that guidance, when issued, could require Pepco Holdings to change previously reported information. When issued, the guidance on accounting for the federal subsidy will include transition guidance, as applicable, for entities that elected to defer accounting for the effects of the Act and those that did not. |
The effect of the subsidy on the current period Other Post-Retirement net periodic benefit cost of $11.0 million would be approximately a $1 million reduction due to the subsidy. Approximately $.5 million would be related to the amortization of the actuarial gain, $.1 million would be a subsidy-related reduction in current period service cost and approximately $.4 million would be a subsidy-related reduction in interest cost on the APBO. |
(3) SEGMENT INFORMATION |
In accordance with SFAS No. 131, "Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information," ACE has one segment, its regulated utility business. |
(4) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
Rate Proceedings |
On February 3, 2003, ACE filed a petition with the NJBPU to increase its electric distribution rates and its Regulatory Asset Recovery Charge (RARC) in New Jersey. In its most recent submission, made on February 20, 2004, ACE proposed an overall rate increase of approximately $35.1 million, consisting of a $30.6 million increase in distribution rates and a $4.5 million increase in RARC. Hearings were held before an Administrative Law Judge in late March and early April 2004. At the hearing held on April 6, 2004, the Ratepayer Advocate proposed an annual rate decrease of $4.5 million, modifying its earlier proposal that rates be decreased by $11.7 million annually. The Staff of the NJBPU is expected to submit its recommendations in briefs to be filed in June. ACE cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. |
59 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
Preliminary Settlement Agreement with NJDEP |
On April 26, 2004, PHI, Conectiv and ACE entered into a preliminary settlement agreement with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the Attorney General of New Jersey that addresses various environmental issues at ACE and Conectiv Energy facilities in New Jersey. Among other things, the preliminary settlement agreement provides that: |
The increase in Power Delivery's operating revenue during the first quarter of 2004 primarily resulted from increases in regulated electric and gas revenues of $64.9 million. Non-regulated revenues increased by $.4 million. |
For the three months ended March 31, 2004,electric delivery sales were 12,710,000 MwH, an increase of approximately 1% as compared to 12,600,000 MwH for the comparable period in 2003. For the three months ended March 31, 2004, gas sales were 10,034,000 dth, a decrease of 6% as compared to 10,670,000 dth for the comparable period in 2003. |
The $64.9 million increase in regulated electric and gas revenues was due to the following: (i) a $38.1 million increase in delivery revenue (revenue Power Delivery receives for delivering energy to its customers)caused by a $28.2 million increase in rates for electricity distribution and gas, $11.8 million increase from growth in customer demand, a $9.4 million increase from the pass through of increased energy taxes, offset by an $11.3 million decrease in weather related sales, of which $7.5 million of the weather related decrease comes from electricity sales and $3.8 million comes from gas sales; (ii) an $11.3 million increase in Standard Offer Service revenue (revenue Power Delivery receives for the procurement of energy by Power Delivery for its customers)resulting from more customers being on Standard Offer Service in 2004 than in 2003, and (iii) a $15.5 million increase in sales into the PJM market. |
The decrease in Conectiv Energy's operating revenue during the first quarter of 2004 resulted from a reduction in energy sales totaling $53 million primarily caused by the expiration of two high-quantity, low-margin contracts that ended in 2003 partially offset by new sales, and a $37 million decrease from the implementation of EITF 03-11 on January 1, 2004. EITF 03-11 requires that revenues and expenses on physically settled derivative contracts not "held for trading purposes" that did not result in physical settlement be reported on a net basis. EITF 03-11 does not require that prior periods be reclassified from gross to net presentation. Additionally, a change in power scheduling procedures by Conectiv Energy to schedule power directly to DPL led to a reduction of $130 million in revenues and expenses from PJM. |
The decrease in Pepco Energy Services' operating revenue during the first quarter of 2004 was primarily due to a decrease in wholesale commodity transactions. |
The decrease in Other Non-Regulated operating revenue during the first quarter of 2004 was primarily due to revenue of $6.7 million which was recorded in 2003, but not in 2004 from a PCI subsidiary that was transferred to Pepco Energy Services in August 2003. |
70 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
Operating Expenses |
Total consolidated operating expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2004, were $1,613.6 million compared to $1,889.6 million for 2003. Intercompany expenses have been eliminated for purposes of this analysis. A detail of these amounts is as follows: |
The $90.1 million increase in Power Delivery's operating expenses during the 2004 quarter primarily resulted from a $64.2 million increase in fuel and purchased energy, and a $25.9 million increase in other operating expenses. These changes are discussed below in greater detail. |
Fuel and energy costs increased by $64.2 million to $450.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004, from $386.0 million for the corresponding period in 2003. The increase was primarily due to (i) a $27.0 million increase in energy procurement costs to provide Standard Offer Service due to the TPA Settlement with Mirant, (ii) a $10.6 million increase in net energy procurement due to higher Standard Offer Service sales, (iii) a $21.0 million increase in gas costs from increased off-system sales and higher fuel costs than experienced in 2003, (iv) $2.6 million for increased sales into the PJM market, and (v) $3.0 million for various other cost increases. |
Other operation and maintenance expenses increased by $1.7 million to $164.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004 from $162.5 million for the corresponding period in 2003. The increase was primarily due to $1.7 million in various miscellaneous expenses. |
Depreciation and amortization expenses increased by $7.3 million to $96.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004 from $88.7 million for the corresponding period in 2003. The increase is primarily due to increases in utility plant and regulatory assets. |
Other taxes increased by $8.5 million to $69.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004 from $60.9 million for the corresponding period in 2003. The increase was primarily due to $9.3 million in higher fuel taxes which are passed through rates to customers. |
Gain on sale of assets during the three months ended March 31, 2004 reflects the sale of land in the first quarter of 2004 for a gain of $6.6 million which reduced operating expenses. |
Deferred electric service costs represent a $15.0 million increase in the net costs of providing Basic Generation Service. As of March 31, 2004, the balance for deferred electric service costs was $170.6 million. Rates were reset as of August 1, 2003 so that there will be no under-recovery of costs embedded in the rates on or after that date. |
71 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
The decrease in Conectiv Energy's operating expenses during the first quarter of 2004 resulted from a reduction in operating expenses of approximately $120 million primarily due to the expiration of two high quantity, low margin contracts during 2003, a $37 million decrease from the implementation of EITF 03-11, and a loss of $110.7 million recognized in 2003 from the cancellation of a CT order. Additionally, in 2003, Conectiv Energy scheduled DPL POLR requirements directly with PJM and its 2003 revenues included these POLR sales. In 2004, POLR requirements were partially scheduled by Conectiv Energy and partially by DPL to better utilize PHI's working capital. The result of this change was a $130 million reduction in Conectiv Energy revenue, and a corresponding reduction in operating expense. |
The decrease in Pepco Energy Services' operating expense during the first quarter of 2004 was primarily due to a decrease in wholesale commodity transactions. |
The decrease in Other Non-Regulated operating expenses during the first quarter of 2004 results from the fact that PCI recorded a pre-tax gain of $5.5 million on the sale of two aircraft, which is reflected in the gain on sale of assets on the consolidated statement of earnings. Also, PCI's operating expenses decreased due to the disposition of assets held in PCI's investment portfolio. |
The decrease in "Corporate and Other" primarily results from the fact that the 2003 period includes a purchase accounting adjustment of $57.9 million related to the CT write-off by Conectiv Energy. |
Other Income (Expenses) |
Total consolidated other (expenses), which primarily consist of dividend and interest income and interest expense, for the three months ended March 31, 2004, were $(87.2) million compared to $(79.4) million for 2003. A detail of these amounts is as follows: |
Financing Activity During the Three Months Ended March 31, 2004 |
Set forth below is a summary of long-term financing activity during the quarter ended March 31, 2004. |
In January 2004, ACE Funding redeemed at maturity $5.4 million of 2.89% Transition Bonds. |
In March 2004, ACE redeemed its $1.975 million 6.375% Tax Exempt Bonds due 2006 at par and $25.773 million of 7.375% Junior Subordinated Debentures due 2028 at par. |
In March 2004, Pepco issued $175 million of 4.65% Senior Notes due 2014 and $100 million of 5.75% Senior Notes due 2034. The notes are secured by a like amount of First Mortgage Bonds. |
In March 2004, PCI redeemed at maturity $26 million of 6.59% Medium-Term Notes and $10 million of 6.36% Medium-Term Notes. |
Financing Activity Subsequent to March 31, 2004 |
Set forth below is a summary of long-term financing activity subsequent to March 31, 2004. |
In April 2004, Pepco redeemed $100 million of 6.875% First Mortgage Bonds due 2023 at 102.66%, $75 million of 6.875% First Mortgage Bond due 2024 at 103.10%, and $35 million of 7% Medium Term Notes due 2024 at 102.747%. |
In April 2004, ACE issued $120 million of 5.80% Senior Notes due 2034. The notes are secured by a like amount of First Mortgage Bonds. |
In April 2004, ACE Funding redeemed at maturity $4.2 million of 2.89% Transition Bonds. |
ACE has called for redemption on May 13, 2004 its $62.5 million of 7% First Mortgage Bonds due 2023 at 102.88% and its $75 million of 7% First Mortgage Bonds due 2028 at 102.91%. |
DPL has called for redemption on May 17, 2004 its $72.2 million of 8.125% Junior Subordinated Debentures due 2036 at par. DPL intends to initially fund the redemption using short-term debt. The $72.2 million redemption amount has |
74 ______________________________________________________________________________
|
been classified as a current liability in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2004. |
Working Capital |
At March 31, 2004, Pepco Holdings' current assets on a consolidated basis totaled $1.8 billion, whereas current liabilities totaled $2.2 billion. At December 31, 2003, current assets on a consolidated basis totaled $1.6 billion, whereas current liabilities totaled $2.1 billion. At March 31, 2004, approximately $1 billion of the $2.2 billion total current liabilities balance represents short-term debt. An analysis of Pepco Holdings' $1.0 billion of short-term debt as of March 31, 2004 is as follows: |
In addition, in connection with the Conectiv Bethlehem revolving credit agreement, Conectiv provides a guarantee associated with Conectiv Energy's agreement to purchase energy and capacity from Conectiv Bethlehem and other guarantees related to obligations of Pepco Holdings subsidiaries under agreements related to constructing and operating the Conectiv Bethlehem mid-merit plant. Generally, Conectiv's guarantee obligations do not exceed the amount of the debt outstanding under the credit agreement and do not guarantee Conectiv Bethlehem's obligation to repay the debt. As of March 31, 2004, the outstanding balance under the Conectiv Bethlehem credit facility was $320.6 million. |
Pepco Holdings and certain of its subsidiaries have entered into various indemnification agreements related to purchase and sale agreements and other types of contractual agreements with vendors and other third parties. These indemnification agreements typically cover environmental, tax, litigation and other matters, as well as breaches of representations, warranties and covenants set forth in these agreements. Typically, claims may be made by third parties under these indemnification agreements over various periods of time depending on the nature of the claim. The maximum potential exposure under these indemnification agreements can range from a specified dollar amount to an unlimited amount depending on the nature of the claim and the particular transaction. The total maximum potential amount of future payments under these indemnification agreements is not estimable due to several factors, including uncertainty as to whether or when claims m ay be made under these indemnities. |
Contractual Arrangements with Credit Rating Triggers or Margining Rights |
Under certain contractual arrangements entered into by PHI's subsidiaries in connection with competitive energy and other transactions, the affected company may be required to provide cash collateral or letters of credit as security for its contractual obligations if the credit ratings of the applicable company are downgraded one or more levels. In the event of a downgrade, the amount required to be posted would depend on the amount of the underlying contractual obligation existing at the time of the downgrade. As of March 31, 2004, a one-level downgrade in the credit rating of PHI and all of its affected subsidiaries would have required PHI and such subsidiaries to provide aggregate cash collateral or letters of credit of approximately up to $86 million. An additional amount of approximately $244 million of aggregate cash collateral or letters of credit would have been required in the event of subsequent downgrades to below investment grade. |
77 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
Many of the contractual arrangements entered into by PHI's subsidiaries in connection with competitive energy activities include margining rights pursuant to which the PHI subsidiary or a counterparty may request collateral if the market value of the contractual obligations reaches levels that are in excess of the credit thresholds established in the applicable arrangements. Pursuant to these margining rights, the affected PHI subsidiary may receive, or be required to post, collateral due to energy price movements. As of March 31, 2004, Pepco Holdings' subsidiaries engaged in competitive energy activities were in receipt of (a net holder of) cash collateral in the amount of $14.6 million in connection with their competitive energy activities. |
Dividends |
On April 22, 2004, Pepco Holdings' Board of Directors declared a dividend on common stock of 25 cents per share payable June 30, 2004, to shareholders of record on June 10, 2004. |
REGULATORY AND OTHER MATTERS |
Relationship with Mirant Corporation |
In 2000, Pepco sold substantially all of its electricity generation assets to Mirant Corporation, formerly Southern Energy, Inc. As part of the sale, Pepco entered into several ongoing contractual arrangements with Mirant and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, Mirant). On July 14, 2003, Mirant Corporation and most of its subsidiaries filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas (the Bankruptcy Court). Under bankruptcy law, a debtor generally may, with authorization from a bankruptcy court, assume or reject executory contracts. A rejection of an executory contract entitles the counterparty to file a claim as an unsecured creditor against the bankruptcy estate for damages incurred due to the rejection of the contract. In a bankruptcy proceeding, a debtor can normally restructure some or all of its pre-petition liabilities. |
Depending on the outcome of the matters discussed below, the Mirant bankruptcy could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations of Pepco Holdings and Pepco. However, management currently believes that Pepco Holdings and Pepco currently have sufficient cash, cash flow and borrowing capacity under their credit facilities and in the capital markets to be able to satisfy the additional cash requirements that are expected to arise due to the Mirant bankruptcy. Accordingly, management does not anticipate that the Mirant bankruptcy will impair the ability of Pepco Holdings or Pepco to fulfill their contractual obligations or to fund projected capital expenditures. On this basis, management currently does not believe that the Mirant bankruptcy will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of either company. |
Transition Power Agreements |
As part of the asset purchase and sale agreement for the Pepco generation assets (the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement), Pepco and Mirant entered into Transition Power Agreements for Maryland and the District of Columbia, respectively (collectively, the TPAs). Under these agreements, Mirant was obligated to supply Pepco with all of the capacity and energy needed to fulfill its standard offer service obligations in Maryland through June 2004 and its standard offer service obligations in the District of Columbia into January 2005. |
78 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
To avoid the potential rejection of the TPAs, Pepco and Mirant entered into an Amended Settlement Agreement and Release dated as of October 24, 2003 (the Settlement Agreement) pursuant to which Mirant has assumed both of the TPAs and the terms of the TPAs were modified. The Settlement Agreement also provides that Pepco has an allowed, pre-petition general unsecured claim against Mirant in the amount of $105 million (the Pepco TPA Claim). |
The amount, if any, that Pepco will be able to recover from the Mirant bankruptcy estate in respect of the Pepco TPA Claim will depend on the amount of assets available for distribution to creditors. At the current stage of the bankruptcy proceeding, there is insufficient information to determine the amount, if any, that Pepco might be able to recover from the Mirant bankruptcy estate. |
Power Purchase Agreements |
Under agreements with FirstEnergy Corp., formerly Ohio Edison (FirstEnergy), and Allegheny Energy, Inc., both entered into in 1987, Pepco is obligated to purchase from FirstEnergy 450 megawatts of capacity and energy annually through December 2005 (the FirstEnergy PPA). Under an agreement with Panda-Brandywine L.P. (Panda), entered into in 1991, Pepco is obligated to purchase from Panda 230 megawatts of capacity and energy annually through 2021 (the Panda PPA). In each case, the purchase price is substantially in excess of current market prices. As a part of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement, Pepco entered into a "back-to-back" arrangement with Mirant. Under this arrangement, Mirant is obligated, among other things, to purchase from Pepco the capacity and energy that Pepco is obligated to purchase under the FirstEnergy PPA and the Panda PPA at a price equal to the price Pepco is obligated to pay under the PPAs (the PPA-Related Obligations). |
Pepco Pre-Petition Claims |
When Mirant filed its bankruptcy petition on July 14, 2003, Mirant had unpaid obligations to Pepco of approximately $29 million, consisting primarily of payments due to Pepco in respect of the PPA-Related Obligations (the Mirant Pre-Petition Obligations). The Mirant Pre-Petition Obligations constitute part of the indebtedness for which Mirant is seeking relief in its bankruptcy proceeding. Pepco has filed Proofs of Claim in the Mirant bankruptcy proceeding in the amount of approximately $26 million to recover this indebtedness; however, the amount of Pepco's recovery, if any, is uncertain. The $3 million difference between Mirant's unpaid obligation to Pepco and the $26 million Proofs of Claim filed by Pepco primarily represents a TPA settlement adjustment which is included in the $105 million Proofs of Claim filed by Pepco against the Mirant debtors in respect of the Pepco TPA Claim. In view of this uncertainty, Pepco, in the third quarter of 2003, expensed $14.5 million to establish a reserve against the $29 million receivable from Mirant. In January 2004, Pepco paid approximately $2.5 million to Panda in settlement of certain billing disputes under the Panda PPA that related to periods after the sale of Pepco's generation assets to Mirant. Pepco believes that under the terms of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement, Mirant is obligated to reimburse Pepco for the settlement payment. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2004 Pepco increased the amount of the receivable due from Mirant by approximately $2.5 million, and Pepco intends to file Proofs of Claim for this amount against Mirant. Pepco currently estimates that the $14.5 million expensed in the third quarter of 2003 represents the portion of the entire $31.5 million receivable unlikely to be recovered in bankruptcy, and no additional reserve has been established for the $2.5 million increase in the receivable. The amount expensed represents |
79 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
Pepco's estimate of the possible outcome in bankruptcy, although the amount ultimately recoverable could be higher or lower. |
Mirant's Attempt to Reject the PPA-Related Obligations |
On August 28, 2003, Mirant filed with the Bankruptcy Court a motion seeking authorization to reject its PPA-Related Obligations. |
Upon motions filed by Pepco and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), on October 9, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the District Court) withdrew jurisdiction over the rejection proceedings from the Bankruptcy Court. On December 23, 2003, the District Court denied Mirant's motion to reject the PPA-Related Obligations. The District Court's decision is being appealed by Mirant and The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Mirant Corporation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 5, 2004. |
Pepco is exercising all available legal remedies and vigorously opposing Mirant's continued attempts to reject the PPA-Related Obligations in order to protect the interests of its customers and shareholders. While Pepco believes that it has substantial legal bases to oppose the attempt to reject the agreements, the outcome of Mirant's efforts to reject the PPA-Related Obligations is uncertain. |
In accordance with the Bankruptcy Court's order, Mirant is continuing to perform the PPA-Related Obligations pending the resolution of the ongoing proceedings. However, if Mirant ultimately is successful in rejecting, and is otherwise permitted to stop performing the PPA-Related Obligations, Pepco could be required to repay to Mirant, for the period beginning on the effective date of the rejection (which date could be prior to the date of the court's order and possibly as early as September 18, 2003) and ending on the date Mirant is entitled to cease its purchases of energy and capacity from Pepco, all amounts paid by Mirant to Pepco in respect of the PPA-Related Obligations, less an amount equal to the price at which Mirant resold the purchased energy and capacity. Pepco estimates that the amount it could be required to repay to Mirant in the unlikely event September 18, 2003, is determined to be the effective date of rejection, is approx imately $69.2 million as of May 1, 2004. This repayment would entitle Pepco to file a claim against the bankruptcy estate in an amount equal to the amount repaid. Mirant has also asked the Bankruptcy Court to require Pepco to disgorge all amounts paid by Mirant to Pepco in respect of the PPA-Related Obligations, less an amount equal to the price at which Mirant resold the purchased energy and capacity, for the period July 14, 2003 (the date on which Mirant filed its bankruptcy petition) to September 18, 2003, on the theory that Mirant did not receive value for those payments. Pepco estimates that the amount it would be required to repay to Mirant on the disgorgement theory is approximately $22.5 million. Pepco believes a claim based on this theory should be entitled to administrative expense status for which complete recovery could be expected. If Pepco were required to repay any such amounts for either period, the payment would be expensed at the time the payment is made. |
The following are estimates prepared by Pepco of its potential future exposure if Mirant's motion to reject its PPA-Related Obligations ultimately is successful. These estimates are based in part on current market prices and forward price estimates for energy and capacity, and do not include financing costs, all of which could be subject to significant fluctuation. The estimates assume no recovery from the Mirant bankruptcy estate and no |
80 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
regulatory recovery, either of which would mitigate the effect of the estimated loss. Pepco does not consider it realistic to assume that there will be no such recoveries. Based on these assumptions, Pepco estimates that its pre-tax exposure as of May 1, 2004, representing the loss of the future benefit of the PPA-Related Obligations to Pepco, is as follows: |
The ability of Pepco to recover from the Mirant bankruptcy estate in respect of the Mirant Pre-Petition Obligations and damages if the PPA-Related Obligations are successfully rejected will depend on whether Pepco's claims are allowed, the amount of assets available for distribution to creditors and Pepco's priority relative to other creditors. At the current stage of the bankruptcy proceeding, there is insufficient information to determine the amount, if any, that Pepco might be able to recover from the Mirant bankruptcy estate, whether the recovery would be in cash or another form of payment, or the timing of any recovery. |
If Mirant ultimately is successful in rejecting the PPA-Related Obligations and Pepco's full claim is not recovered from the Mirant bankruptcy estate, Pepco may seek authority from the Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC) and the District of Columbia Public Service Commission (DCPSC) to recover its additional costs. Pepco is committed to working with its regulatory authorities to achieve a result that is appropriate for its shareholders and customers. Under the provisions of the settlement agreements approved by the MPSC and the DCPSC in the deregulation proceedings in which Pepco agreed to divest its generation assets under certain conditions, the PPAs were to become assets of Pepco's distribution business if they could not be sold. Pepco believes that, if Mirant ultimately is successful in rejecting the PPA-Related Obligations, these provisions would allow the stranded costs of the PPAs that are not recovered from the Mirant bankruptcy estate to be recovered through Pepco's distribution rates. If Pepco's interpretation of the settlement agreements is confirmed, Pepco expects to be able to establish the amount of its anticipated recovery as a regulatory asset. However, there is no assurance that Pepco's interpretation of the settlement agreements would be confirmed by the respective public service commissions. |
If the PPA-Related Obligations are successfully rejected, and there is no regulatory recovery, Pepco will incur a loss. However, the accounting treatment of such a loss depends on a number of legal and regulatory factors, and is not determinable at this time. |
81 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
The SMECO Agreement |
As a term of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement, Pepco assigned to Mirant a facility and capacity agreement with Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SMECO) under which Pepco was obligated to purchase the capacity of an 84-megawatt combustion turbine installed and owned by SMECO at a former Pepco generating station (the SMECO Agreement). The SMECO Agreement expires in 2015 and contemplates a monthly payment to SMECO of approximately $.5 million. Pepco is responsible to SMECO for the performance of the SMECO Agreement if Mirant fails to perform its obligations thereunder. At this time, Mirant continues to make post-petition payments due to SMECO. |
However, on March 15, 2004, Mirant filed a complaint with the Bankruptcy Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the facility and capacity credit agreement is an unexpired lease of non-residential real property rather than an executory contract and that if Mirant were to successfully reject the agreement, any claim against the bankruptcy estate for damages made by SMECO (or by Pepco as subrogee) would be subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that limit the recovery of rejection damages by lessors. Pepco believes that there is no reasonable factual or legal basis to support Mirant's contention that the SMECO Agreement is a lease of real property and has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the outcome of this proceeding cannot be predicted. |
Preliminary Settlement Agreement with NJDEP |
On April 26, 2004, PHI, Conectiv and ACE entered into a preliminary settlement agreement with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the Attorney General of New Jersey that addresses various environmental issues at ACE and Conectiv Energy facilities in New Jersey. Among other things, the preliminary settlement agreement provides that: |
The preliminary settlement agreement also provides that the parties will work toward a consent order or other final settlement document that reflects the terms of the preliminary settlement agreement. |
Pursuant to a NJBPU order issued on September 25, 2003, ACE on April 30, 2004, filed a report with the NJBPU recommending that the B.L. England facility be shut down in accordance with the terms of the preliminary settlement agreement. The report stated that the operation of the B.L. England facility is necessary at the present time to satisfy reliability standards, but that those reliability standards could also be satisfied in other ways. The report concludes that, based on B.L. England's current and projected operating costs resulting from compliance with more restrictive environmental requirements, the most cost-effective way in which to meet reliability standards is to shut down the B.L. England facility and construct additional transmission lines into southern New Jersey. ACE cannot predict whether the NJBPU will approve the construction of the additional transmission lines. |
Rate Proceedings |
On February 3, 2003, ACE filed a petition with the NJBPU to increase its electric distribution rates and its Regulatory Asset Recovery Charge (RARC) in New Jersey. In its most recent submission, made on February 20, 2004, ACE proposed an overall rate increase of approximately $35.1 million, consisting of a $30.6 million increase in distribution rates and a $4.5 million increase in RARC. Hearings were held before an Administrative Law Judge in late March and early April 2004. At the hearing held on April 6, 2004, the Ratepayer Advocate proposed an annual rate decrease of $4.5 million, modifying its earlier proposal that rates be decreased by $11.7 million annually. The Staff of the |
83 ______________________________________________________________________________ |
NJBPU is expected to submit its recommendations in briefs to be filed in June. ACE cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. |
In December 2003, the Delaware Public Service Commission (DPSC) approved a settlement agreement that provided for an annual increase of $7.75 million in DPL's gas base rate. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, on February 13, 2004, DPL filed for an Environmental Surcharge of approximately $522,000 amortized over five years to recover out-of-pocket costs associated with gas environmental issues. The DPSC approved this surcharge on April 20, 2004. The surcharge will be adjusted year-to-year to reflect DPL's actual costs. |
DPL filed on February 13, 2004 for a change in electric ancillary service rates that has an aggregate effect of increasing annual revenues by $13.1 million or 2.4%. This filing was prompted by the increasing ancillary service costs charged to DPL by PJM. On February 24, 2004, the DPSC accepted the filing and placed the increase into effect on March 15, 2004, subject to refund. Intervention by another party has been filed. Unless the proceeding is settled, evidentiary hearings will be held in late August with a decision expected before the end of 2004. |
On August 29, 2003, DPL submitted its annual Gas Cost Recovery (GCR) rate filing to the DPSC. In its filing, DPL sought to increase its GCR rate by approximately 15.8% in anticipation of increasing natural gas commodity costs. The GCR rate, which permits DPL to recover its procurement gas costs through customer rates, became effective November 1, 2003 and was subject to refund pending evidentiary hearings that were held on April 19, 2004. No party has proposed to modify DPL's proposed GCR rate, thus no refund is required. However, DPSC Staff has suggested prospective modifications to the program by which DPL hedges price risk for its gas purchases. |
In compliance with the merger settlement approved by the MPSC in connection with the merger of Pepco and Conectiv, on December 4, 2003, DPL and Pepco submitted testimony and supporting schedules to establish electric distribution rates in Maryland effective July 1, 2004, when the current distribution rate freeze/caps end. The filings of each company demonstrate that it is in an under-earning situation. As provided in the terms of the merger settlement, DPL requested it be allowed to put into effect July 1, 2004, a rate increase for non-residential customers to offset the nuclear decommissioning equivalent decrease that was effective July 1, 2003. The merger settlement provides that Pepco's distribution rates can only decrease or remain unchanged after July 1, 2004. With limited exceptions, the merger settlement does not permit either company to increase distribution rates until after December 31, 2006. The MPSC Staff has filed testimony stating that no distribution rate reductions are justified and that DPL should be authorized to increase its non-residential customers' distribution rates by approximately $1.1 million. The Office of the People's Counsel (OPC) agrees that no distribution rate reduction is warranted for DPL or Pepco if the respective DPL and Pepco capital structures are used in determining whether existing rates should be reduced. However, OPC argues that the Pepco Holdings' consolidated capital structure and capital costs should be used to determine whether distribution rate reductions for Pepco and DPL are warranted. Based on PHI's consolidated capital structure, OPC recommended that DPL's and Pepco's distribution rates be reduced. Hearings in the Pepco case concluded April 27, 2004. Hearings in the DPL case will be held on May 11 and 12, 2004. Separate MPSC decisions in the DPL and Pepco cases are expected to be issued in early July 2004. Neither Pepco nor DPL can predict the outcome of the proceedings. |
84 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
SOS and POLR Proceedings |
District of Columbia |
On March 1, 2004, the DCPSC issued an order adopting the "wholesale" model for Standard Offer Service (SOS) in the District of Columbia after fixed rate SOS ends February 7, 2005. Under the wholesale model, Pepco will continue as the SOS provider after February 7, 2005. Several parties have filed applications for reconsideration of the order adopting the wholesale model that are pending before the DCPSC. PHI cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. |
In December 2003, the DCPSC issued an order adopting terms and conditions that would apply if the wholesale SOS model were adopted. Pepco and most of the other parties in the case filed applications for reconsideration and/or clarification of various parts of this order, and on March 1, 2004, the DCPSC granted in part and denied in part the applications for reconsideration and/or clarification. Because the DCPSC changed certain rules in its order granting in part and denying in part applications for reconsideration of the wholesale SOS terms and conditions, several parties filed for reconsideration of the March 1, 2004 order. Those applications for reconsideration are pending decision by the DCPSC. The DCPSC has also instituted an evidentiary proceeding to consider the amount of the administrative charge which Pepco may collect for providing SOS on and after February 8, 2005. The DCPSC intends to issue a decision by August&n bsp;10, 2004. |
Virginia |
In March 2004, Virginia amended its Electric Utility Restructuring Act to extend the rate freeze provisions applicable to DPL's rates for both provider of last resort (POLR) supply and distribution. The rate freezes, previously scheduled to expire on July 1, 2007, were extended to December 31, 2010, except that one change in base rates can be proposed by DPLprior to July 1, 2007, and one additional change in base rates can be proposed by DPLbetween that date and December 31, 2010. Additionally, rates may be increased to reflect increased purchased power costs, increased taxes, or increased costs to comply with environmental or reliability requirements. |
The Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act obligates DPL to offer POLR service during the period that rates are frozen and thereafter, until relieved of that obligation by the Virginia State Corporation Commission (VSCC). |
On December 3, 2003, DPL and Conectiv Energy filed with the VSCC an amendment to extend their power supply agreement for one year,i.e., through December 31, 2004, and on a month-to-month basis thereafter, as it applies to power supply for DPL's Virginia POLR customers. The VSCC approved the amendment in an order issued on March 1, 2004. After December 31, 2004 either DPL or Conectiv Energy can terminate Conectiv Energy's obligation to provide supplies to meet DPL's Virginia POLR obligations by giving 30 days written notice to the other party. |
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES |
No material changes have occurred to Pepco Holdings' Critical Accounting Policies during the first quarter of 2004. Accordingly, for a discussion of these policies, please refer to Item 7, Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of Pepco Holdings' 2003 Form 10-K/A. |
85 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
RISK FACTORS |
Proposed tax legislation may have a material adverse effect on PHI's financial condition and results of operations. |
The assets of PCI include a cross-border=0energy lease portfolio with a book value of approximately $1.2 billion at March 31, 2004. Currently, there is pending legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives (HR3967), that would apply new passive loss limitation rules prospectively to any new leases (including cross-border=0leases) entered into on or after February 11, 2004 with tax indifferent parties (i.e., municipalities, tax exempt or governmental entities). Cross-border=0leases are leases by a U.S. taxpayer of property located in a foreign country. All of PCI's cross-border=0leases are with tax indifferent parties but were entered into prior to 2004. Legislation is also pending in the Senate (S1637) that may jeopardize the tax benefits received by leaseholders, including PCI, from existing cross-border=0leases. The legislation, if adopted as proposed, would enact new passive loss limitation rules that would be applied retroactive ly to all existing lease agreements, for taxable years beginning after May 31, 2004, for all cross-border=0leaseholders, including PCI. The outcome of these legislative proposals is unknown at this time. However, if the Senate's version were to be adopted in its current form, the amount of income tax benefits that PHI would receive in connection with PCI's cross-border=0leases could decrease materially. If this occurred, PHI may be required to write down the book value of PCI's portfolio of cross-border=0leases by taking a charge against earnings. Any of these circumstances could have a material adverse effect on PHI's financial condition and results of operations. |
For additional information concerning risk factors, please refer to Item 7, Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in Pepco Holdings' Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003. |
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS |
Some of the statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are subject to the safe harbor created by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements include declarations regarding Pepco Holdings' intents, beliefs and current expectations. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as "may," "will," "should," "expects," "plans," "anticipates," "believes," "estimates," "predicts," "potential" or "continue" or the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. Any forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, and actual results could differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve estimates, assumptions, known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that ma y cause our or our industry's actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. |
The forward-looking statements contained herein are qualified in their entirety by reference to the following important factors, which are difficult to predict, contain uncertainties, are beyond Pepco Holdings' control and may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements: |
86 _____________________________________________________________________________
|
The table above shows the amount of electric revenue earned that are subject to price regulation (regulated) and that are not subject to price regulation (non-regulated). Regulated electric revenues include revenues for delivery (transmission and distribution) service and electricity supply service within the service areas of Pepco. |
Regulated revenue, which includes delivery revenue (revenue Pepco receives for delivering energy to its customers) and SOS revenue (revenue Pepco receives for the procurement of energy by Pepco for its customers) increased by $32.3 million. Delivery revenue increased by $11.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004 due to a $9.4 million increase from an energy tax pass through and a $3.9 million increase that results from a 1.3% increase in delivered kilowatt-hour sales, partially offset by a $1.8 million decrease in weather-related sales. SOS revenue increased by $20.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004 due to a 14.1% increase in sales. |
Pepco's retail access to a competitive market for generation services was made available to all Maryland customers on July 1, 2000 and to D.C. customers on January 1, 2001. At March 31, 2004, 13% of Pepco's Maryland customers and 10% of its D.C. customers have chosen alternate suppliers. These customers accounted for 742 megawatts of load in Maryland (of Pepco's total load of 3,322) and 786 megawatts of load in D.C. (of Pepco's total load of 2,161). At |
89 ______________________________________________________________________________ |
March 31, 2003, 17% of Pepco's Maryland customers and 12% of its D.C. customers had chosen alternate suppliers. These customers accounted for 987 megawatts of load in Maryland (of Pepco's total load of 3,537) and 960 megawatts of load in D.C. (of Pepco's total load of 2,310). |
For the three months ended March 31, 2004, delivery sales were 6,679,000 MwH, an increase of 1.3% as compared to 6,592,000 MwH for the comparable period in 2003. |
Non-regulated electric revenue increased $3.9 million primarily due to higher property claims and billed rents during the 2004 quarter. |
Operating Expenses |
Fuel and Purchased Energy |
Electric fuel and purchased energy increased by $39.5 million to $173.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004, from $134.2 million for the corresponding period in 2003. The increase was primarily due to $27.0 million higher costs as a result of the Transition Power Agreements (TPA) settlement with Mirant that increased the price of energy purchased from Mirant, $20.0 million higher SOS costs resulting from a 14.1% increase in SOS sales, and $1.8 million higher transmission services. These increases were partially offset by a $9.4 million reduction in the Generation Procurement Credit (GPC) which resulted from the lower SOS margin, which in turn provided less customer sharing. |
Other Operation and Maintenance |
Other operation and maintenance expenses increased by $7.4 million to $67.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004, from $59.7 million for the corresponding period in 2003. The increase was primarily due to $3.0 million higher field labor costs not associated with capital projects, $1.9 million for increased outside legal counsel and professional fees and $1.2 million for PJM charges and other expenses. |
Depreciation and Amortization |
Depreciation and amortization expenses increased by $2.6 million to $43.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004, from $41.3 million for the corresponding period in 2003. This increase results from $1.0 million for additions to depreciable plant, $.9 million for non-utility depreciation, and $.7 million for higher software amortization. |
Other Taxes |
Other taxes increased by $11.5 million to $56.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004, from $45.0 million for the corresponding period in 2003. The increase was primarily due to $9.3 million higher fuel taxes which is a pass through, and $1.0 million higher DC delivery tax. |
Gain on Sale of Asset |
Gain on sale of asset during the first quarter of 2004 reflects a sale of land in the first quarter of 2004 for a gain of $6.6 million which reduced operating expenses. |
90 ______________________________________________________________________________
|
Other Income (Expenses) |
Other expenses increased by $1.0 million to a net expense of $19.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004, from a net expense of $18.3 million for the corresponding period in 2003 primarily due to an increase in interest expense resulting from the reclassification of distributions on mandatorily redeemable preferred securities to interest expense in accordance with SFAS No. 150. |
Income Tax Expense |
Pepco's effective tax rate for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 was 37.6% and 38.7% respectively, as compared to the federal statutory rate of 35%. The major reasons for this difference are state income taxes (net of federal benefit) and the flow-through of certain book tax depreciation differences partially offset by the flow through of Deferred Investment Tax Credits. |
CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY |
Financing Activity |
In March 2004, Pepco issued $175 million of 4.65% Senior Notes due 2014 and $100 million of 5.75% Senior Notes due 2034. The notes are secured by a like amount of First Mortgage Bonds. |
Financing Activity Subsequent to March 31, 2004 |
In April 2004, Pepco redeemed $100 million of 6.875% First Mortgage Bonds due 2023 at 102.66%, $75 million of 6.875% First Mortgage Bond due 2024 at 103.10%, and $35 million of 7% Medium Term Notes due 2024 at 102.747%. |
Capital Requirements |
Construction Expenditures |
Pepco's construction expenditures for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 totaled approximately $42 million. |
REGULATORY AND OTHER MATTERS |
Relationship with Mirant Corporation |
In 2000, Pepco sold substantially all of its electricity generation assets to Mirant Corporation, formerly Southern Energy, Inc. As part of the sale, Pepco entered into several ongoing contractual arrangements with Mirant and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, Mirant). On July 14, 2003, Mirant Corporation and most of its subsidiaries filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas (the Bankruptcy Court). Under bankruptcy law, a debtor generally may, with authorization from a bankruptcy court, assume or reject executory contracts. A rejection of an executory contract entitles the counterparty to file a claim as an unsecured creditor against the bankruptcy estate for damages incurred due to the rejection of the contract. In a bankruptcy proceeding, a debtor can normally restructure some or all of its pre-petition liabilities. |
91 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
Depending on the outcome of the matters discussed below, the Mirant bankruptcy could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations of Pepco. However, management currently believes that Pepco currently has sufficient cash, cash flow and borrowing capacity under its credit facilities and in the capital markets to be able to satisfy the additional cash requirements that are expected to arise due to the Mirant bankruptcy. Accordingly, management does not anticipate that the Mirant bankruptcy will impair the ability of Pepco to fulfill its contractual obligations or to fund projected capital expenditures. On this basis, management currently does not believe that the Mirant bankruptcy will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of Pepco. |
Transition Power Agreements |
As part of the asset purchase and sale agreement for the Pepco generation assets (the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement), Pepco and Mirant entered into Transition Power Agreements for Maryland and the District of Columbia, respectively (collectively, the TPAs). Under these agreements, Mirant was obligated to supply Pepco with all of the capacity and energy needed to fulfill its standard offer service obligations in Maryland through June 2004 and its standard offer service obligations in the District of Columbia into January 2005. |
To avoid the potential rejection of the TPAs, Pepco and Mirant entered into an Amended Settlement Agreement and Release dated as of October 24, 2003 (the Settlement Agreement) pursuant to which Mirant has assumed both of the TPAs and the terms of the TPAs were modified. The Settlement Agreement also provides that Pepco has an allowed, pre-petition general unsecured claim against Mirant in the amount of $105 million (the Pepco TPA Claim). |
The amount, if any, that Pepco will be able to recover from the Mirant bankruptcy estate in respect of the Pepco TPA Claim will depend on the amount of assets available for distribution to creditors. At the current stage of the bankruptcy proceeding, there is insufficient information to determine the amount, if any, that Pepco might be able to recover from the Mirant bankruptcy estate. |
Power Purchase Agreements |
Under agreements with FirstEnergy Corp., formerly Ohio Edison (FirstEnergy), and Allegheny Energy, Inc., both entered into in 1987, Pepco is obligated to purchase from FirstEnergy 450 megawatts of capacity and energy annually through December 2005 (the FirstEnergy PPA). Under an agreement with Panda-Brandywine L.P. (Panda), entered into in 1991, Pepco is obligated to purchase from Panda 230 megawatts of capacity and energy annually through 2021 (the Panda PPA). In each case, the purchase price is substantially in excess of current market prices. As a part of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement, Pepco entered into a "back-to-back" arrangement with Mirant. Under this arrangement, Mirant is obligated, among other things, to purchase from Pepco the capacity and energy that Pepco is obligated to purchase under the FirstEnergy PPA and the Panda PPA at a price equal to the price Pepco is obligated to pay under the PPAs (the PPA-Related Obligations). |
92 _____________________________________________________________________________
|
Pepco Pre-Petition Claims |
When Mirant filed its bankruptcy petition on July 14, 2003, Mirant had unpaid obligations to Pepco of approximately $29 million, consisting primarily of payments due to Pepco in respect of the PPA-Related Obligations (the Mirant Pre-Petition Obligations). The Mirant Pre-Petition Obligations constitute part of the indebtedness for which Mirant is seeking relief in its bankruptcy proceeding. Pepco has filed Proofs of Claim in the Mirant bankruptcy proceeding in the amount of approximately $26 million to recover this indebtedness; however, the amount of Pepco's recovery, if any, is uncertain. The $3 million difference between Mirant's unpaid obligation to Pepco and the $26 million Proofs of Claim filed by Pepco primarily represents a TPA settlement adjustment which is included in the $105 million Proofs of Claim filed by Pepco against the Mirant debtors in respect of the Pepco TPA Claim. In view of this uncertainty, Pepco, in the third quarter of 2003, expensed $14.5 million to establish a reserve against the $29 million receivable from Mirant. In January 2004, Pepco paid approximately $2.5 million to Panda in settlement of certain billing disputes under the Panda PPA that related to periods after the sale of Pepco's generation assets to Mirant. Pepco believes that under the terms of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement, Mirant is obligated to reimburse Pepco for the settlement payment. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2004 Pepco increased the amount of the receivable due from Mirant by approximately $2.5 million, and Pepco intends to file Proofs of Claim for this amount against Mirant. Pepco currently estimates that the $14.5 million expensed in the third quarter of 2003 represents the portion of the entire $31.5 million receivable unlikely to be recovered in bankruptcy, and no additional reserve has been established for the $2.5 million increase in the receivable. The amount expensed represents Pepco's estimate of the possible outcome in bankruptcy, although the amount ultimately recoverable could be higher or lower. |
Mirant's Attempt to Reject the PPA-Related Obligations |
On August 28, 2003, Mirant filed with the Bankruptcy Court a motion seeking authorization to reject its PPA-Related Obligations. |
Upon motions filed by Pepco and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), on October 9, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the District Court) withdrew jurisdiction over the rejection proceedings from the Bankruptcy Court. On December 23, 2003, the District Court denied Mirant's motion to reject the PPA-Related Obligations. The District Court's decision is being appealed by Mirant and The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Mirant Corporation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 5, 2004. |
Pepco is exercising all available legal remedies and vigorously opposing Mirant's continued attempts to reject the PPA-Related Obligations in order to protect the interests of its customers and shareholders. While Pepco believes that it has substantial legal bases to oppose the attempt to reject the agreements, the outcome of Mirant's efforts to reject the PPA-Related Obligations is uncertain. |
In accordance with the Bankruptcy Court's order, Mirant is continuing to perform the PPA-Related Obligations pending the resolution of the ongoing proceedings. However, if Mirant ultimately is successful in rejecting, and is otherwise permitted to stop performing the PPA-Related Obligations, Pepco could be required to repay to Mirant, for the period beginning on the effective date of the rejection (which date could be prior to the date of the |
93 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
court's order and possibly as early as September 18, 2003) and ending on the date Mirant is entitled to cease its purchases of energy and capacity from Pepco, all amounts paid by Mirant to Pepco in respect of the PPA-Related Obligations, less an amount equal to the price at which Mirant resold the purchased energy and capacity. Pepco estimates that the amount it could be required to repay to Mirant in the unlikely event September 18, 2003, is determined to be the effective date of rejection, is approximately $69.2 million as of May 1, 2004. This repayment would entitle Pepco to file a claim against the bankruptcy estate in an amount equal to the amount repaid. Mirant has also asked the Bankruptcy Court to require Pepco to disgorge all amounts paid by Mirant to Pepco in respect of the PPA-Related Obligations, less an amount equal to the price at which Mirant resold the purchased energy and capacity, for the period July 14, 2003 (the date on which Mirant filed its bankruptcy petition) to September 18, 2003, on the theory that Mirant did not receive value for those payments. Pepco estimates that the amount it would be required to repay to Mirant on the disgorgement theory is approximately $22.5 million. Pepco believes a claim based on this theory should be entitled to administrative expense status for which complete recovery could be expected. If Pepco were required to repay any such amounts for either period, the payment would be expensed at the time the payment is made. |
The following are estimates prepared by Pepco of its potential future exposure if Mirant's motion to reject its PPA-Related Obligations ultimately is successful. These estimates are based in part on current market prices and forward price estimates for energy and capacity, and do not include financing costs, all of which could be subject to significant fluctuation. The estimates assume no recovery from the Mirant bankruptcy estate and no regulatory recovery, either of which would mitigate the effect of the estimated loss. Pepco does not consider it realistic to assume that there will be no such recoveries. Based on these assumptions, Pepco estimates that its pre-tax exposure as of May 1, 2004, representing the loss of the future benefit of the PPA-Related Obligations to Pepco, is as follows: |
The ability of Pepco to recover from the Mirant bankruptcy estate in respect of the Mirant Pre-Petition Obligations and damages if the PPA-Related Obligations are successfully rejected will depend on whether Pepco's claims are allowed, the amount of assets available for distribution to creditors and Pepco's priority relative to other creditors. At the current stage of the bankruptcy proceeding, there is insufficient information to determine the amount, if any, that Pepco might be able to recover from the Mirant |
94 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
bankruptcy estate, whether the recovery would be in cash or another form of payment, or the timing of any recovery. |
If Mirant ultimately is successful in rejecting the PPA-Related Obligations and Pepco's full claim is not recovered from the Mirant bankruptcy estate, Pepco may seek authority from the Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC) and the District of Columbia Public Service Commission (DCPSC) to recover its additional costs. Pepco is committed to working with its regulatory authorities to achieve a result that is appropriate for its shareholders and customers. Under the provisions of the settlement agreements approved by the MPSC and the DCPSC in the deregulation proceedings in which Pepco agreed to divest its generation assets under certain conditions, the PPAs were to become assets of Pepco's distribution business if they could not be sold. Pepco believes that, if Mirant ultimately is successful in rejecting the PPA-Related Obligations, these provisions would allow the stranded costs of the PPAs that are not recovered from the Mirant bankruptcy estate to be recovered through Pepco's distribution rates. If Pepco's interpretation of the settlement agreements is confirmed, Pepco expects to be able to establish the amount of its anticipated recovery as a regulatory asset. However, there is no assurance that Pepco's interpretation of the settlement agreements would be confirmed by the respective public service commissions. |
If the PPA-Related Obligations are successfully rejected, and there is no regulatory recovery, Pepco will incur a loss. However, the accounting treatment of such a loss depends on a number of legal and regulatory factors, and is not determinable at this time. |
The SMECO Agreement |
As a term of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement, Pepco assigned to Mirant a facility and capacity agreement with Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SMECO) under which Pepco was obligated to purchase the capacity of an 84-megawatt combustion turbine installed and owned by SMECO at a former Pepco generating station (the SMECO Agreement). The SMECO Agreement expires in 2015 and contemplates a monthly payment to SMECO of approximately $.5 million. Pepco is responsible to SMECO for the performance of the SMECO Agreement if Mirant fails to perform its obligations thereunder. At this time, Mirant continues to make post-petition payments due to SMECO. |
However, on March 15, 2004, Mirant filed a complaint with the Bankruptcy Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the facility and capacity credit agreement is an unexpired lease of non-residential real property rather than an executory contract and that if Mirant were to successfully reject the agreement, any claim against the bankruptcy estate for damages made by SMECO (or by Pepco as subrogee) would be subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that limit the recovery of rejection damages by lessors. Pepco believes that there is no reasonable factual or legal basis to support Mirant's contention that the SMECO Agreement is a lease of real property and has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the outcome of this proceeding cannot be predicted. |
95 _____________________________________________________________________________
|
Rate Proceedings |
In compliance with the merger settlement approved by the MPSC in connection with the merger of Pepco and Conectiv, on December 4, 2003, Pepco submitted testimony and supporting schedules to establish electric distribution rates in Maryland effective July 1, 2004, when the current distribution rate freeze/caps end. Pepco's filing demonstrates that it is in an under-earning situation. The merger settlement provides that Pepco's distribution rates can only decrease or remain unchanged after July 1, 2004. With limited exceptions, the merger settlement does not permit Pepco to increase distribution rates until after December 31, 2006. The MPSC Staff has filed testimony stating that no distribution rate reductions are justified. The Office of the People's Counsel (OPC) agrees that no distribution rate reduction is warranted for Pepco if the Pepco capital structure is used in determining whether existing rates should be reduced. How ever, OPC argues that the Pepco Holdings' consolidated capital structure and capital costs should be used to determine whether distribution rate reductions for Pepco are warranted. Based on PHI's consolidated capital structure, OPC recommended that Pepco's distribution rates be reduced. Hearings in the Pepco case concluded April 27, 2004. The MPSC decision is expected to be issued in early July 2004. Pepco cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding. |
SOS Proceedings |
District of Columbia |
On March 1, 2004, the DCPSC issued an order adopting the "wholesale" model for Standard Offer Service (SOS) in the District of Columbia after fixed rate SOS ends February 7, 2005. Under the wholesale model, Pepco will continue as the SOS provider after February 7, 2005. Several parties have filed applications for reconsideration of the order adopting the wholesale model that are pending before the DCPSC. PHI cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. |
In December 2003, the DCPSC issued an order adopting terms and conditions that would apply if the wholesale SOS model were adopted. Pepco and most of the other parties in the case filed applications for reconsideration and/or clarification of various parts of this order, and on March 1, 2004, the DCPSC granted in part and denied in part the applications for reconsideration and/or clarification. Because the DCPSC changed certain rules in its order granting in part and denying in part applications for reconsideration of the wholesale SOS terms and conditions, several parties filed for reconsideration of the March 1, 2004 order. Those applications for reconsideration are pending decision by the DCPSC. The DCPSC has also instituted an evidentiary proceeding to consider the amount of the administrative charge which Pepco may collect for providing SOS on and after February 8, 2005. The DCPSC intends to issue a decision by August&n bsp;10, 2004. |
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES |
No material changes have occurred to Pepco's Critical Accounting Policies during the first quarter of 2004. Accordingly, for a discussion of these policies, please refer to Item 7, Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of Pepco's 2003 Form 10-K. |
96 _____________________________________________________________________________
|
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS |
Some of the statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are subject to the safe harbor created by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements include declarations regarding Pepco's intents, beliefs and current expectations. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as "may," "will," "should," "expects," "plans," "anticipates," "believes," "estimates," "predicts," "potential" or "continue" or the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. Any forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, and actual results could differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve estimates, assumptions, known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our or our industry's actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. |
The forward-looking statements contained herein are qualified in their entirety by reference to the following important factors, which are difficult to predict, contain uncertainties, are beyond Pepco's control and may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements: |
DPL has gas revenues from on-system natural gas sales, which generally are subject to price regulation, and from the transportation of natural gas for customers. The table above shows the amounts of gas revenues from sources that were subject to price regulation (regulated) and that were not subject to price regulation (non-regulated). |
Regulated Gas Revenues |
The $9.8 million increase in Regulated gas revenues primarily resulted from an $11.9 million increase in the Gas Cost Rate effective November 1, 2003, and a $3.1 million increase in Gas base rates effective December 9, 2003. The increases were partially offset by a $3.8 million decrease in weather related sales and $1.4 million decrease in other variances. Heating degree days decreased by 4.1% for the three months ended March 31, 2004 compared to the same period in 2003. For the three months ended March 31, 2004, gas sales were 10,034,000 dth as compared to 10,670,000 dth for the comparable period in 2003. |
101 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
Non-Regulated Gas Revenues |
The $12.9 million increase in Non-regulated gas revenues is primarily due to the following: (i) a $12.4 million increase due to bundled off-system sales revenues partially offset by a decrease in capacity release revenues, and (ii) a $5.0 million increase due to off-system sales associated with a storage optimization program which began in November of 2003. The revenue increases were partially offset by a decrease of $4.3 million due to lower market prices in 2004 than in 2003. |
Operating Expenses |
Fuel and Purchased Energy |
Fuel and purchased energy decreased by $11.7 million to $158.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004, from $169.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2003. The decrease was primarily due to an $11.7 million decrease in power purchased for the DMEC contract which expired at year-end 2003. |
Gas Purchased |
Gas purchased increased by $21.0 million to $73.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004, from $52.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2003. Overall, the increase was due to (i) higher regulated fuel costs; (ii) cost related to increased non-regulated off-system sales, and (iii) cost associated with the implementation of a storage optimization program, which began in November of 2003. The cost increases were partially offset by lower prices in 2004 vs. 2003. |
Other Income (Expenses) |
Other expenses decreased by $.2 million to a net expense of $7.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004, from a net expense of $8.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2003. The decrease was primarily due to a $.9 million decrease in interest charges attributed to the reduction in long term debt from prior year, which was partially offset by a $.7 million increase in money pool interest expense. |
Income Tax Expense |
DPL's effective tax rate for the first quarter of 2004 and 2003 was 41% and 40%, respectively, as compared to the federal statutory rate of 35%. In both quarters, the major reason for this difference is state income taxes (net of federal benefit). |
102 _____________________________________________________________________________
|
The table above shows the amounts of electric revenues earned that are subject to price regulation (regulated) and that are not subject to price regulation (non-regulated). Regulated electric revenues include revenues for delivery (transmission and distribution) service and electricity supply service within the service areas of ACE. |
Regulated Electric Revenues |
The $24.5 million increase in Regulated electric revenues was due to the following: (i) a $7.9 million increase from residential and small commercial business growth; (ii) a $13.2 million increase from higher retail rates across all classes effective August 1, 2003; (iii) a $15.5 million increase in PJM Interconnection sales revenues, (iv) a $9.2 million decrease from more |
104 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
customers choosing alternate suppliers; (v) a $3.8 million retail revenue decrease from lower retail sales due to warmer winter weather, and (vi) a $0.9 million increase from other variances. Customers who have chosen alternate suppliers accounted for 18% of billed sales for the 2004 period compared to 10% for the corresponding 2003 period. Delivered sales for the three months ended March 31, 2004 were 2,370,000 MwH as compared to 2,334,000 MwH for the comparable period in 2003. |
Sales, resulting primarily from the sale of electricity to the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM) Interconnection (an electric power pool), increased due to the New Jersey BPU mandate that each New Jersey utility participate in an auction to allow third-party energy suppliers to provide Basic Generation Service (BGS) to the customers in its territory. As of December 31, 2003, 100% of the ACE customer BGS MwH load was being supplied by other suppliers through the auction process, so now all ACE generation is sold to PJM markets as per the NJBPU mandated order. |
Non-Regulated Electric Revenues |
The $3.3 million decrease in non-regulated electric revenues was primarily due to a $3.2 million fuel oil sale in the first quarter of 2003. |
Operating Expenses |
Fuel and Purchased Energy |
Fuel and purchased energy increased by $5.8 million to $193.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004, from $187.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2003. The increase is primarily due to the annual adjustment in the NJBPU approved rates paid to the providers of Basic Generation Service. |
Depreciation and Amortization |
Depreciation and amortization expenses increased by $5.2 million to $33.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004, from $28.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2003 primarily due to a $3.5 million increase for amortization of bondable transition property as result of additional transition bonds issued in December 2003 and due to a $1.7 million increase for amortization of a regulatory tax asset related to New Jersey stranded costs. |
Other Taxes |
Other taxes decreased by $2.5 million to $4.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004, from $6.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2003. The decrease was mainly due to a tax expense true-up in March, 2004 for the Transitional Energy Facility Assessment, which is based on kilowatt-hour sales. |
Deferred Electric Service Costs |
This item represents a $15 million over-recovery of the cost incurred in providing Basic Generation Service.ACE's rates were reset as of August 1, 2003 so that there will be no under-recovery of costs embedded in the rates on or after that date. The balance for ACE's deferred electric service costs was $170.6 million as of March 31, 2004. On July 31, 2003, the NJBPU issued its Summary Order permitting ACE to begin collecting a portion of the deferred costs that were incurred as a result of the New Jersey Electric |
105 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
Discount and Energy Competition Act (EDECA) and to reset rates to recover on-going costs incurred as a result of EDECA. |
Other Income (Expenses) |
Other expenses increased by $1.5 million to a net expense of $12.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004, from a net expense of $11.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2003. This increase is primarily due to (i) $1.4 million decrease in interest income accrued on the balance for ACE's deferred electric service costs due to a lower interest rate used, effective August 1, 2003; (ii) $1.9 million decrease in long-term debt interest expense due to lower outstanding long-term debt balances for ACE; (iii) $1.5 million increase in interest expense on Transition Bonds issued by ACE Transition Funding due to additional transition bonds issued in December, 2003; (iv) $0.2 million increase in interest expense due to the implementation of FAS 150, which required a change in designation for trust preferred securities and (v) $0.3 million increase from other variances. |
Income Tax Expense |
ACE's effective tax rate for the first quarter of 2004 and 2003 was 42% and 38%, respectively, as compared to the federal statutory rate of 35%. For the 2004 quarter the major reason for this difference is state income taxes (net of federal benefit). The 2004 difference was also attributable to plant flow through and other book to tax differences. For the 2003 quarter the major reason for this difference is state income taxes (net of federal benefit) and other book to tax differences. |
106 _____________________________________________________________________________ |
Pepco Holdings |
For additional information concerning market risk, please refer to Item 7A, Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure About Market Risk in Pepco Holdings' Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003. |
Pepco |
For information concerning market risk, please refer to Item 7A, Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure About Market Risk in Pepco's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. |
INFORMATION FOR THIS ITEM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR DPL, ACE, AND ACE FUNDING AS THEY MEET THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN GENERAL INSTRUCTION H(1)(a) AND (b) OF FORM 10-Q AND THEREFORE ARE FILING THIS FORM WITH A REDUCED FILING FORMAT. |
Item 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES |
Pepco Holdings, Inc. |
Disclosure controls and procedures are PHI's controls and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by PHI in the reports that it files with or submits to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported, within the time periods specified in the SEC's rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls, and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by PHI in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, including the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. |
Under the supervision, and with the participation, of management including the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer, management has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of PHI's disclosure controls and procedures as of March 31, 2004, and, based upon this evaluation, the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer have concluded that these controls and procedures are adequate to ensure that information requiring disclosure is communicated to management in a timely manner and reported within the timeframe specified by the SEC's rules and forms. |
During the three months ended March 31, 2004, there was no change in PHI's internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, PHI's internal controls over financial reporting. |
Potomac Electric Power Company |
Disclosure controls and procedures are Pepco's controls and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by Pepco in the reports that it files with or submits to the SEC under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported, within the time periods specified in the SEC's rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls, and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by Pepco in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and |
118 ______________________________________________________________________________ |
communicated to management, including the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. |
Under the supervision, and with the participation, of management including the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer, management has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures as of March 31, 2004, and, based upon this evaluation, the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer have concluded that these controls and procedures are adequate to ensure that information requiring disclosure is communicated to management in a timely manner and reported within the timeframe specified by the SEC's rules and forms. |
During the three months ended March 31, 2004, there was no change in Pepco's internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Pepco's internal controls over financial reporting. |
Delmarva Power & Light Company |
Disclosure controls and procedures are DPL's controls and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by DPL in the reports that it files with or submits to the SEC under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported, within the time periods specified in the SEC's rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls, and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by DPL in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, including the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. |
Under the supervision, and with the participation, of management including the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer, management has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures as ofMarch 31, 2004, and, based upon this evaluation, the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer have concluded that these controls and procedures are adequate to ensure that information requiring disclosure is communicated to management in a timely manner and reported within the timeframe specified by the SEC's rules and forms. |
During the three months ended March 31, 2004, there was no change in DPL's internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, DPL's internal controls over financial reporting. |
Atlantic City Electric Company |
Disclosure controls and procedures are ACE's controls and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by ACE in the reports that it files with or submits to the SEC under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported, within the time periods specified in the SEC's rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls, and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by ACE in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, including the chief executive officer and the chief financial |
119 ______________________________________________________________________________ |
officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. |
Under the supervision, and with the participation of management, including the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer, management has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures of March 31, 2004, and, based upon this evaluation, the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer have concluded that these controls and procedures are adequate to ensure that information requiring disclosure is communicated to management in a timely manner and reported within the timeframe specified by the SEC's rules and forms. |
During the three months ended March 31, 2004, there was no change in ACE's internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, ACE's internal controls over financial reporting. |
Atlantic City Electric Transition Funding LLC |
ACE Funding is an "asset backed issuer" (as defined by Rule 15d-14(g) under the Exchange Act) and, accordingly, the disclosures required by this Item relate to matters that, as provided in Rule 15d-15 under the Exchange Act, do not apply to ACE Funding. |
Part II OTHER INFORMATION |
Item 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
Pepco Holdings |
Mirant Bankruptcy |
On July 14, 2003, Mirant and most of its subsidiaries filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. For additional information refer to "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Relationship with Mirant Corporation." |
For further information concerning litigation matters, please refer to Item 3, Legal Proceedings, of Pepco Holdings' Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003. |
Pepco |
Mirant Bankruptcy |
On July 14, 2003, Mirant and most of its subsidiaries filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. For additional information refer to "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Relationship with Mirant Corporation." |
For further information concerning litigation matters, please refer to Item 3, Legal Proceedings, of Pepco's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. |
120 ______________________________________________________________________________
|
Delmarva Power & Light Company |
For information concerning litigation matters, please refer to Item 3, Legal Proceedings, of DPL's Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003. |
Atlantic City Electric Company |
For information concerning litigation matters, please refer to Item 3, Legal Proceedings, of ACE's Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003. |
Atlantic City Electric Transition Funding LLC |
None. |
Item 2. CHANGES IN SECURITIES, USE OF PROCEEDS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES |
Pepco Holdings |
None. |
Pepco |
None. |
INFORMATION FOR THIS ITEM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR DPL, ACE, AND ACE FUNDING AS THEY MEET THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN GENERAL INSTRUCTION H(1)(a) AND (b) OF FORM 10-Q AND THEREFORE ARE FILING THIS FORM WITH A REDUCED FILING FORMAT. |
Item 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES |
Pepco Holdings |
None. |
Pepco |
None. |
INFORMATION FOR THIS ITEM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR DPL, ACE, AND ACE FUNDING AS THEY MEET THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN GENERAL INSTRUCTION H(1)(a) AND (b) OF FORM 10-Q AND THEREFORE ARE FILING THIS FORM WITH A REDUCED FILING FORMAT. |
Item 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS |
Pepco Holdings |
None. |
Pepco |
None. |
INFORMATION FOR THIS ITEM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR DPL, ACE, AND ACE FUNDING AS THEY MEET THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN GENERAL INSTRUCTION H(1)(a) AND (b) OF FORM 10-Q AND THEREFORE ARE FILING THIS FORM WITH A REDUCED FILING FORMAT. |
121 ______________________________________________________________________________ |
Item 5. OTHER INFORMATION |
Pepco Holdings |
None. |
Pepco |
None. |
DPL |
None. |
ACE |
None. |
ACE Funding |
None. |
Item 6. EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K |
(a) Exhibits |
The documents listed below are being filed or furnished on behalf of Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI), Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco), Delmarva Power & Light Company (DPL), Atlantic City Electric Company (ACE) and Atlantic City Electric Transition Funding LLC (ACE Funding). |
Exhibit 31.1 |
CERTIFICATION |
I, Dennis R. Wraase, Chief Executive Officer of Pepco Holdings, Inc., certify that: |
1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Pepco Holdings, Inc. |
2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
4. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchanges Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: |
| a) | Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; |
| b) | Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and |
| c) | Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and |
5. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors: |
| a) | All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and |
| b) | Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. |
Date: May 7, 2004
|
D. R. WRAASE Dennis R. Wraase President and Chief Executive Officer
|
Exhibit 31.2 |
CERTIFICATION |
I, Andrew W. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of Pepco Holdings, Inc., certify that: |
1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Pepco Holdings, Inc. |
2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
4. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchanges Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: |
| a) | Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; |
| b) | Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and |
| c) | Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and |
5. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors: |
| a) | All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and |
| b) | Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. |
Date: May 7, 2004
|
A. W. WILLIAMS Andrew W. Williams Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
Exhibit 31.3 |
CERTIFICATION |
I, Dennis R. Wraase, Chief Executive Officer of Potomac Electric Power Company, certify that: |
1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Potomac Electric Power Company. |
2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
4. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchanges Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: |
| a) | Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; |
| b) | Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and |
| c) | Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and |
5. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors: |
| a) | All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and |
| b) | Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. |
Date: May 7, 2004
|
D. R. WRAASE Dennis R. Wraase Chief Executive Officer
|
Exhibit 31.4 |
CERTIFICATION |
I, Andrew W. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of Potomac Electric Power Company, certify that: |
1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Potomac Electric Power Company. |
2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
4. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchanges Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: |
| a) | Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; |
| b) | Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and |
| c) | Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and |
5. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors: |
| a) | All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and |
| b) | Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. |
Date: May 7, 2004
|
A. W. WILLIAMS Andrew W. Williams Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
Exhibit 31.5 |
CERTIFICATION |
I, Thomas S. Shaw, Chief Executive Officer of Delmarva Power & Light Company, certify that: |
1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Delmarva Power & Light Company. |
2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
4. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchanges Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: |
| a) | Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; |
| b) | Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and |
| c) | Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and |
5. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors: |
| a) | All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and |
| b) | Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. |
Date: May 7, 2004
|
T. S. SHAW Thomas S. Shaw Chief Executive Officer
|
Exhibit 31.6 |
CERTIFICATION |
I, Andrew W. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of Delmarva Power & Light Company, certify that: |
1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Delmarva Power & Light Company. |
2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
4. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchanges Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: |
| a) | Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; |
| b) | Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and |
| c) | Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and |
5. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors: |
| a) | All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and |
| b) | Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. |
Date: May 7, 2004
|
A. W. WILLIAMS Andrew W. Williams Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
Exhibit 31.7 |
CERTIFICATION |
I, Joseph M. Rigby, Chief Executive Officer of Atlantic City Electric Company, certify that: |
1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Atlantic City Electric Company. |
2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
4. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchanges Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: |
| a) | Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; |
| b) | Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and |
| c) | Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and |
5. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors: |
| a) | All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and |
| b) | Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. |
Date: May 7, 2004
|
JOSEPH M. RIGBY Joseph M. Rigby President and Chief Executive Officer
|
Exhibit 31.8 |
CERTIFICATION |
I, Andrew W. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of Atlantic City Electric Company, certify that: |
1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Atlantic City Electric Company. |
2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
4. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchanges Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: |
| a) | Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; |
| b) | Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and |
| c) | Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and |
5. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors: |
| a) | All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and |
| b) | Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. |
Date: May 7, 2004
|
W. W. WILLIAMS Andrew W. Williams Chief Financial Officer
|